Jeremy Corbyn

Quoted from Marinerz93

I'm talking about bombing ISIS positions in Syria not Asad. By not bombing ISIS positions in Syria you are condoning what will happen once they gain control. Not our problem, the refugees looking to get into Britain are making it our problem. A leader / potential leader would act, not sit on his hands.

This is all about a Gas pipeline, Asad won't allow it because it will weaken Russia.  The Turks who will benefit from a gas pipe line have been caught sending weapons to ISIS.  This is going to get much worse with far more suffering.

ISIS needs to challenged head on or you can wait for them to come to you, are you struggling to understand what ISIS is about.

I'm condoning nothing and nor have I expressed my opinion on whether we should or shouldn't bomb ISIS in Syria. I was just pointing out some of the shite you posted about what Corbyn 'wanted'. If I wanted hyperbolic right wing nonsense I'd buy the Daily Mail. When Grim74 is the only one who agrees with you that should set alarm bells ringing!

Quoted from Rodley Mariner

I'm condoning nothing and nor have I expressed my opinion on whether we should or shouldn't bomb ISIS in Syria. I was just pointing out some of the shite you posted about what Corbyn 'wanted'. If I wanted hyperbolic right wing nonsense I'd buy the Daily Mail. When Grim74 is the only one who agrees with you that should set alarm bells ringing!

I wasn't talking about you per say when I said

By not bombing ISIS positions in Syria you are condoning what will happen once they gain control. Not our problem, the refugees looking to get into Britain are making it our problem. A leader / potential leader would act, not sit on his hands.

We are talking about Corbyn's position should he get into power. None of what I have said about Syria is exaggerated, their mission is to take control and spread, which they have done since they formed.  So knowing what they are about he will sit his hands and do nothing accepting that they will spread more death and destruction.  Now that is either wanton abandonment of public duties because it is effecting the UK or something he his happy for it to continue, either case he should never get into power.

You might see that as right wing shite but I see a lack of conviction to deal with ISIS as a lack of leadership and a danger to our security in the UK.  If you want to know what ISIS do to Christians I suggest you search '21 Christians' to see what these animals are capable of.

Quoted from mariner91

It's a completely different situation moving to another country than having them move here. You can't claim they don't integrate from your experiences abroad, it's not the same thing. I work with a Romanian girl, she's lovely. She certainly doesn't indulge in any of the behaviour you've suggested but who doesn't love a bigoted sweeping statement? I've also had a friend of my flatmates in the flat tonight who is Muslim but I suppose he was just plotting his Jihadist attacks against us. Equally, perhaps I should be ashamed and have my passport revoked because the meal we ate contained halal chicken.

I didn't answer the point about Sweden because I can't be bothered to go look it up, it's not even relevant to the integration in this country as it's not in this country. It's extremely tiresome and I really can't be bothered to argue with your insular viewpoint, I think it's sad you hold the strong views you do and that you don't judge people on their own individual merit but to each their own.

P.s butterface http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=butter+face Not entirely sure what you were trying to suggest. My face isn't great admittedly but neither is the rest of me.

I said You haven't answered my point about Sweden, did you get buffer face ignoring it? buffer face from the phone ad.  I can now see why you hold the views you do, you won't look outside the confines of home and don't read things properly, be like Bacon  

[youtube]rpxE2yIyRhI[/youtube]

I'd be interested to know, M93, which shows less moral fibre; sticking your little fella into a dead pig's head or not singing the national anthem?

Quoted from Maringer

Interesting link there. The fullfact thing notes the 1,000,000 uses was not to individuals, but then the Trussell Trust notes this in it's stats:

http://www.trusselltrust.org/stats

So, with an average of two instances per person per annum that is somewhere around half a million people supported by Trussell Trust food banks. Note also that the TT provised just half of the food banks in the UK. If the figures of the other food banks match those of the TT, then we could be around the 1,000,000 individuals mark. No statistics to show this one way or the other, however.

Your comments that the food banks were somehow brought in by the Labour government to bolster the welfare system is utterly bizarre! The food banks were set up by charitable organisations to meet a need, a need which clearly increased following the recession caused by the financial crash back in 2008. The appalling recovery following this recession thanks to Osbornomics means that the poorest haven't even got back to the income levels of 2008 and inflation has only been down to zero recently so it is clear that they are worse off. Of course, the benefits cuts during the last parliament and the further cuts just passed make the situation even more precarious.

Look, it's clear that you don't believe, well, pretty much anything about the poor struggling to get by in the current system. You've entirely bought into the "skivers vs strivers" narrative of your favoured party.

So, explain this to me. As the IFS notes in the link below low income households lost the most money due to tax and benefits changes during the last parliament:

http://election2015.ifs.org.uk/distributional-analysis

So, the poorest 30% or so have lost up to 2% of their total income due to tax/benefit changes at the same time that annual inflation was averaging around 3% (which didn't even drop below 2% until 2014). Cumulatively, that's an increase of well over 10% in prices whilst their income has been cut, so why would you possibly think that the poorest in society wouldn't be struggling to put food on the table, especially when wage growth was pretty much non-existent until the past 12 months or so?

Similarly, why do you think that the new tax credit cuts and increased benefit cap just passed won't lead to more of the poorest in society struggling to put food on the table? Inflation might be at zero now but, as this IFS chart shows, the bottom 20% of earners stand to lose over 10% of their income over the next 5 years!

http://twitter.com/TheIFS/status/619133104893108225/photo/1

The poorest are already down well over 10% in real income over the past parliament and now they are to lose another 10%? Come on, explain how this won't lead to real hardship, especially at a time when rental prices are increasing twice as fast as wages!

Well done Maringer, once again you have managed to derail a thread! We started of with Corbyrn but somehow you have managed to turn it around to your favourite topic of conversation George Osbourne!! I think you must secretly admire this man after all he's the one digging us out of the hole Brown and Balls left us in, oh how you must wish he was in your camp.

So anyway for a start I'm not going to get dragged in to a mammary for tat on benefit cuts with you, in case you have forgotten it's been done to death under the tax credits thread where I have given my counter argument and explanations to you, and you eventually come round to the correct way of thinking.

Secondly I am not loyal to one political party so why you still refer to me as being a Tory I just don't understand, after all I have put you straight on a few occasions now, so I'm given the assumption that maybe you really do struggle to takes things in, or its some kind of memory loss you suffer with?
So just to clarify once again I feel no great affiliation with any of the main party's, I have voted labour and conservative in the past but given the vote today it would be UKIP, ask me again in 6months it might be a different story so I suppose I'm classed as a floating voter, my mind is free unlike yours from political indoctrination.

In response i do sympathise with the low income working families out there who do struggle with every day costs that the long term welfare dependants get for free and take for granted, at least action is now finally being taken with a government that encourages people back in to work and offering them a living wage far more than the Labour contemplated, and to ensure that anyone who chooses not to work will not be better off on benefits.

So back to Corbyrn, is there anything with his views on the world that you don't agree with with? For instance do you think his proposals to welcome thousands of migrants in to our country against the wishes of the majority of the people (according to at least 4 polls I have seen) would be good for the country ?

If Corbyn gets in and does nationalise the trains again,

Does that mean the old milk train will run again from London,?

Had many a good day down in the smoke following Town and coming back on the milk train.

Grim74, if you seriously believe Osborne has been "the one digging us out of the hole Brown and Balls left us in", you're either deluded or have a reading comprehension problem. Possibly both.  

I posted reams of information pre-election which showed that Osborne had done nothing but damage the economy since he became chancellor. The figures about the dismal recovery (which he makes fantastical claims about), lack of wage growth, income cuts for the poor, tax cuts for the wealthy are absolutely indisputable as are the ones which showed that the previous Labour government wasn't overspending and their spending wasn't the cause of the crash, a lie promulgated by Osborne himself at every given chance.

I call you a Tory because you appear to be in agreement with everything they say, however obviously untrue the propaganda may be. If it walks like a duck and looks like a duck, chances are, it's a duck.

Speaking of propaganda, you mention Osborne's proper 'national living wage'. You are, of course, aware that the real "Living Wage" as promoted by the Living Wage Foundation takes into account all income/benefits which a worker is due? The current Living Wage figures of £7.85/£9.15 were calculated on the assumption that low earners will be in receipt of the tax credits and other benefits which Osborne has just slashed! The LWF will update the figure in a month or two for 2016 and you can expect the figures to rise a good amount to take these cuts into account. Personally, I reckon Lidl have been quite clever announcing they will begin to pay above the Living Wage this past weekend as they know the official figure will increase a lot soon. I've not checked, but I'm guessing they haven't committed to keeping up with an increased living wage for 2016. Don't be surprised if one or two other organisations suddenly announce they will follow suit for a PR move before the Real Living Wage (which is what they should rename it) is increased.

Osborne's "National Living Wage" is a handy increase in the minimum wage but is simply passing off, trying to use the reputation of the actual, real Living Wage. The cuts to tax credits and reduced benefit caps mean that millions of workers will be worse off than before the implementation of this 'NLW'. Raising the minimum wage whilst at the same time reducing overall income for the poorest in society is one of the most disingenuous things you can do. The most ridiculous thing, of course, is that under-25s aren't going to get anywhere near this higher rate so they are going to be dreadfully hit by the cuts. Talking about pissing all over the young. No political party has ever been so generous to the older demographic whilst shitting all over the younger generation as this lot and they surely can't be thinking about the longer-term? Building up anger and resentment amongst the young is not something which a healthy society should accept. Bear in mind, the elderly will be relying on this generation to look after them as they get older.

The problem here is outlined in your penultimate paragraph. You believe that anybody on welfare or benefits (or social security as it was once known - the right-wing had to change the nomenclature to help them change the narrative), is a feckless workshy slacker who sits on their backsides all day laughing at people going to work whilst swigging their Diamond White and watching TV. The reality, of course, is much different. Not that you believe any of the information that disproves it, of course.

As for Corbyn and his views, I personally think it is right for us to continue to accept immigrants though it obviously shouldn't be completely unfettered immigration. I'd go as far as to say we have a moral responsibility to do so as it is our involvement in wars and other military action which has destabilised the areas from which the immigrants are coming. If you're going to overthrow the governments (appalling as they were) of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, you have to be aware that refugees are going to be an issue.

On another tack, but for immigrants, we have an aging population and it is only the children born to immigrants which is actually stopping our population declining. Bluntly, with many more elderly people in the country, we need people to be working in the economy to look after and support them. The baby boomers have started to retire now and are putting an enormous strain on NHS and Social Care.

This is not to say that there isn't a balance to be struck between immigration and making sure the young in this country have a chance with jobs as well. Government investment on education and training is appalling low in this country in comparison to our competitors (and has been for decades) so it is no surprise that many of the immigrants coming here to work, especially from Europe, tend to be better educated than our general populace.

Quite a wordy way to say that I think reasonable levels of immigration are both OK and necessary. However, we need government investment in education/training to fill skills shortages and this is something that the current and previous governments simply haven't provided. In fact, the enormous debt which University students need to accept in this country now are making things even worse in this regard. Explains why increasing numbers of British students are studying in Europe.

Quoted from mariner91

I'd be interested to know, M93, which shows less moral fibre; sticking your little fella into a dead pig's head or not singing the national anthem?

The clue is in the saying M91, obviously it is morally wrong to allegedly stick your little fella into a dead pigs head but what you do in your spare time I have no interest in, the other part we have discussed at length, so I see you are still suffering with buffer face.

Maringer have you ever thought of going into politics ?

Serious question as you do talk a lot of sense,

Quoted from Marinerz93

The clue is in the saying M91, obviously it is morally wrong to allegedly stick your little fella into a dead pigs head but what you do in your spare time I have no interest in, the other part we have discussed at length, so I see you are still suffering with buffer face.

Which saying? Moral fibre? Someone's ability to do what is morally correct in a particular situation? I'd say sticking your cock in to a dead animal is less morally correct than not singing the national anthem but then perhaps you consider a lack of "national pride" as worse than bestiality and necrophilia.

I see you are still suffering with the inability to actually debate something so resort to juvenile references to a tv advert.