Jeremy Corbyn Vol. 2

[sidicks]

dimots said:

The robot in me wants to agree with you, but much as pure socialism doesn't work with fallible humans, nor does pure market economics. There are too many casualties. I believe we need to temper this with some form of intervention. Herein lies the root of our disagreement.

No, the intervention that is required is to help provide equality of opportunity. Labour seem determined to target equality of outcome.

[dimots]

sidicks said:

No, the intervention that is required is to help provide equality of opportunity. Labour seem determined to target equality of outcome.

Ok. Examples please.

[sidicks]

dimots said:

sidicks said:

No, the intervention that is required is to help provide equality of opportunity. Labour seem determined to target equality of outcome.

Ok. Examples please.

Education is one of the best routes to improvement for those in lower socio economic groups.

Labour consistently encouraged an environment of rising grades but falling standards, and now seek to prevent the most intelligent from accessing grammar schools. They also devalued degrees.

[dimots]

sidicks said:

Education is one of the best routes to improvement for those in lower socio economic groups.

Labour consistently encouraged an environment of rising grades but falling standards, and now seek to prevent the most intelligent from accessing grammar schools. They also devalued degrees.

I think this is just your opinion - the previous labour government got more people into education than ever and raised literacy standards to record levels.

[sidicks]

dimots said:

I think this is just your opinion - the previous labour government got more people into education than ever and raised literacy standards to record levels.

Certainly there are lots of people in education that shouldn't be there - something to do with the bribery of the EMA perhaps?

As for your other claim:

Lower literacy among employees despite Labour's spending
Literacy and numeracy levels among new employees have plummeted over the past decade despite a huge increase in education spending under Labour, according to business leaders.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2534296/Lower-lite...

[Donkey Of The Damned]

sidicks said:

dimots said:

If you do not think progressive politics is the answer (as proposed by Labour) what DO you think is the answer?

We already have progressive taxation. 'Progressive politics' is a funny name for 'spend billions of pounds that the country does not have'.

We've just splurged a billion quid for the sake of 10 MPs. Proof, as if it were needed that austerity is a political preference, not a national necessity.

[sidicks]

Donkey Of The Damned said:

We've just splurged a billion quid for the sake of 10 MPs. Proof, as if it were needed that austerity is a political preference, not a national necessity.

How are you getting on wth those NHS spending figures??


Spending ever increasing amounts year on year is NOT austerity. HTH.

[AstonZagato]

dimots said:

We all know what you're saying - we have less money/we have spent our money/we have to cut something. We know you don't think taxing the rich is the answer.

The PROBLEM is that the wealth divide continues to get wider and the people at the POOR end not the RICH end of the divide are the ones who suffer.

If you do not think progressive politics is the answer (as proposed by Labour) what DO you think is the answer? Continuing as we are is not the solution many people at the POOR (for an alternative interpretation read 'young' in place of 'poor' if you like) end want you to propose because it simply ignores the worsening situation for MILLIONS of people.

Growing GDP would be a good start. The greater the tax base, the more money we have to spend on services.

[Donkey Of The Damned]

sidicks said:

Donkey Of The Damned said:

We've just splurged a billion quid for the sake of 10 MPs. Proof, as if it were needed that austerity is a political preference, not a national necessity.

How are you getting on wth those NHS spending figures??


Spending ever increasing amounts year on year is NOT austerity. HTH.

Capping public sector workers' pay below that of inflation is austerity. Closing hospitals is austerity. Reducing police officer numbers is austerity. Reducing NHS spending per % of GDP is austerity. HTH

Thankfully the public are beginning to wake up to the tedious spin you and the Tories have been trotting out for near on a decade. The Cons will have to change course or will almost certainly get booted out at the next election.

[sidicks]

Donkey Of The Damned said:

Capping public sector workers' pay below that of inflation is austerity. Closing hospitals is austerity. Reducing police officer numbers is austerity. Reducing NHS spending per % of GDP is austerity. HTH

We haven't reduced NHS spending as a % of GDP (as explained above) - you really should have the most basic of understanding before making such claims!

Donkey Of The Damned said:

Thankfully the public are beginning to wake up to the tedious spin you and the Tories have been trotting out for near on a decade. The Cons will have to change course or will almost certainly get booted out at the next election.

Are you still struggling with what a £150bn deficit means?

[Moonhawk]

Donkey Of The Damned said:

You must have missed the fact that despite these cuts, the national debt is still rising. Not a great record by those in power. I'd be ashamed to publicly admit I voted for them tbh.

Why did you expect the national debt to suddenly stop rising. By what mechanism would it simply stop rising?

Despite the cuts - there is still a budget deficit. The cuts (and the tax rises) haven't been large enough. Until we start running a budget surplus - the debt will continue to rise, can you not see that?

Let me illustrate it:

• If you earn £100 a month but spend £200 a month - your debt is going to increase by £100 per month (this is where we were in 2010)
• If you cut back to spending to £120 per month - your debt is still going to rise by £20 per month (this is where we are in 2017)

The only way your debt will stop growing or even shrink is if you cut your spending back to below £100 per month (or earn more).

The country hasn't reached that level yet and is still a few years away from doing so and as such - the debt is going to continue to rise until we reach that point.

Edited by Moonhawk on Monday 26th June 22:38

[Donkey Of The Damned]

sidicks said:

Donkey Of The Damned said:

Capping public sector workers' pay below that of inflation is austerity. Closing hospitals is austerity. Reducing police officer numbers is austerity. Reducing NHS spending per % of GDP is austerity. HTH

We haven't reduced NHS spending as a % of GDP (as explained above) - you really should have the most basic of understanding before making such claims!

Donkey Of The Damned said:

Thankfully the public are beginning to wake up to the tedious spin you and the Tories have been trotting out for near on a decade. The Cons will have to change course or will almost certainly get booted out at the next election.

Are you still struggling with what a £150bn deficit means?

You really need to stop lying. It's doing what little credibility you have left no good.

[sidicks]

Donkey Of The Damned said:

You really need to stop lying. It's doing what little credibility you have left no good.

To date, under the Coalition and Tories, every year is still above what Labour spent when they were in power (excluding 2008) !! Therefore, by your reckoning, every year in the history of the NHS (apart form 2010) has been 'austerity'?

In that case, what is the appropriate amount of spending as a percentage of GDP which would be required if it was not to be considered 'austerity'?

You never did answer which services should be cut to increase spending further?

Edited by sidicks on Monday 26th June 22:41

[AstonZagato]

And here is a real spending graph:

[Crackie]

Donkey, what do you think Jeremy Corbyn and the labour shadow cabinet will be able to achieve if they were in office. Presumably an end to austerity will be a priority and thus fewer cuts in public services and more public sector jobs retained ?? Any thoughts ??

[sidicks]

Crackie said:

Donkey, what do you think Jeremy Corbyn and the labour shadow cabinet will be able to achieve if they were in office. Presumably an end to austerity will be a priority and thus fewer cuts in public services and more public sector jobs retained ?? Any thoughts ??

What will happen to our deficit and debt in that scenario?!

[Donkey Of The Damned]

sidicks said:

Donkey Of The Damned said:

You really need to stop lying. It's doing what little credibility you have left no good.

To date, under the Coalition and Tories, every year is still above what Labour spent when they were in power (excluding 2008) !![/b]

So by your reckoning, every year in the history of the NHS (apart form 2010) has been 'austerity'? What is the appropriate amount of spending as a percentage of GDP which would be required if it was not to be considered 'austerity'?

You never did answer which services should be cut to increase spending further?

Edited by sidicks on Monday 26th June 22:38

And the spin continues...

I said "NHS spending as a %'age of GDP has been falling since the Tories took power".

You said "He's also wrong as far as GDP is concerned." and "I'm saying that 'donkey' was talking total bks. and I'm correct."

Oh dear, oh dear. Sidicks wrong again, not that much of a surprise. Though will he admit it this time?

[Tuna]

Donkey Of The Damned said:

Capping public sector workers' pay below that of inflation is austerity. Closing hospitals is austerity. Reducing police officer numbers is austerity. Reducing NHS spending per % of GDP is austerity. HTH

Thankfully the public are beginning to wake up to the tedious spin you and the Tories have been trotting out for near on a decade. The Cons will have to change course or will almost certainly get booted out at the next election.

So, if I spend wildly beyond my means, put everything on credit for my kids to pick up later, mortgage myself to the hilt - when the bank takes my credit cards off me for irresponsible spending, that's austerity is it?

Under Brown's desperate plans to bribe the electorate with cheap credit and uncapped spending (oh, and an attempted deal with the DUP), he massively increased police numbers. Since then, police numbers have been brought back down to levels that are about the same as they were in the middle of Blair's tenure.

The same Labour government undertook disastrous PFI arrangements that hamstrung hospitals across the country. It's ridiculous in the extreme to suggest that spending more money on the NHS in ways that actually reach the patients rather than lucrative private partnerships constitutes 'austerity'.

And whilst we're at it, You really have no idea of what austerity actually is. Go spend some time in Greece and then tell us that the UK is having a hard time.

The fact is we shouldn't be engaging in a race to the bottom. We saw how bad a financial shock can be if a government hasn't prepared for it, so it beggars belief that within a decade the same party is proposing that we drop any attempt at economic planning and just throw money at the people they think are most likely to vote for them.

[sidicks]

Donkey Of The Damned said:

And the spin continues...

I said "NHS spending as a %'age of GDP has been falling since the Tories took power".

You said "He's also wrong as far as GDP is concerned." and "I'm saying that 'donkey' was talking total bks. and I'm correct."

Oh dear, oh dear. Sidicks wrong again, not that much of a surprise. Though will he admit it this time?

Fair play, that is correct, I apologise. But that doesn't tie up with your comments on austerity, and certainly doesn't take into account the £150bn deficit that was inherited.

The point of course is that spending as a % of GDP is still higher than every year (apart from 2008) under the Labour government.

1. Do you class the NHS spending under Labour between 1997 and 2009 as being 'austerity'?

2. What is the appropriate NHS spending amount as a percent of GDP to not be considered as 'austerity'?

3. What public spending would you reduce to fund the necessary (in your opinion) higher spending on the NHS?

[AstonZagato]

sidicks said:

Donkey Of The Damned said:

And the spin continues...

I said "NHS spending as a %'age of GDP has been falling since the Tories took power".

You said "He's also wrong as far as GDP is concerned." and "I'm saying that 'donkey' was talking total bks. and I'm correct."

Oh dear, oh dear. Sidicks wrong again, not that much of a surprise. Though will he admit it this time?

Fair play, that is correct, I apologise. But that doesn't tie up with your comments on austerity, and certainly doesn't take into account the £150bn deficit that was inherited.

The point of course is that spending as a % of GDP is still higher than every year (apart from 2008) under the Labour government.

1. Do you class the NHS spending under Labour between 1997 and 2009 as being 'austerity'?

2. What is the appropriate NHS spending amount as a percent of GDP to not be considered as 'austerity'?

3. What public spending would you reduce to fund the necessary (in your opinion) higher spending on the NHS?

And:

4. Real spending on the NHS is higher than it has ever been.