Jeremy Corbyn

Quoted from Zmariner

He has some points that I agree with him but I generally have agreed with spending cuts. Corbyn is not a nut job but I am 25 years self employed and after Brown have very little faith in socialist economics. There is terrible inequality I agree but I do like hard work to be rewarded and higher taxation of the wealthy although popular is not always proven as an economic winner. I work in finance , usually in London, and have seen crazy waste in the mixed up councils in London. Good luck to everybody with their own choices and much is determined by your background. Mine is very working class and I have grafted very hard and all over the place hence I only want to pay benefits for those in real need and not those who are not prepared to graft

The spending cuts have been an absolutely disastrous policy which have led to the worst recovery from a recession in our country's history. Osborne inherited a decent recovery in 2010 (growth of over 2% and on an upward track), and his austerity cut it dead - we were heading for a double-dip recession and only avoided this because Osborne quietly stopped austerity in 2012, leading to the poor recovery we have seen.

I'm afraid that Brown's policies were in no way socialist. Very centrist (and not a great deal different than the Major government in many respects), didn't attempt to fix the horribly broken housing market, didn't introduce any sort of progressive taxation and inequality (which many studies show is bad for the general economy) soared during the New Labour years. Though not as much as it has increased since 2010.

I'm afraid you're mistaken if you think progressive taxation doesn't work. As noted above, there are plenty of studies which show that progressive taxation leads to more equality and a stronger economy.

Incidentally, as you mention you work in finance, I can understand why you may hold many of the views you've just mentioned because I'm sure you'll be surrounded by people espousing these views. They conveniently forget that it was the financial sector which caused the crash and recession in 2008 and much of the huge national debt we now have came from bailing out the banks. Not that this is anything to do with you, of course!

In fact, there is research which shows a large financial sector in an economy (which doesn't actually produce anything, remember) is actually bad for growth overall. Even the Economist magazine seems happy to accept this:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2015/02/finance-sector-and-growth

You've also apparently bought into the usual poverty myths about 'skivers vs strivers'. They are just that - myths. TV shows of the likes of Benefits Street and Skint show a tiny proportion of the population and the vast majority are nothing like some of the likely characters appearing in those shows.

Anyway, nice to have a civilised tone to a debate, something one or two on this board can't manage.  

Quoted from Grim74

Deluded? This coming from someone who believes the BBC has a right wing agenda!
Again to say the two buffoons in question had nothing to do at all with creating the worst recession since the war, and to believe it was totally out of their hands and to believe they wasn't even partly responsible then you really have been brainwashed.
It's all in the report - http://tpa.typepad.com/home/fi.....2019%20SEPTEMBER.pdf

The IMF and Ed Balls said Osbourne's economic plans would not work!!!
Balls went further to predict a double dip recession, ( one of many false predictions) but then and according to the IMF Britains economy grew faster than any other G7 countries last year but you claim it's been damaged!

"Lack of wage growth"  you cry! Are you talking about the public sector? If so great news these wages had grown far to big in comparison with the similar jobs in the private sector, we just need to reduce the size now (brown increased this to 52% during his unelected tenure) and then boost the private sector which after all creates all the wealth in our economy.

Tax cuts bleat, bleat, as mentioned tax credits done to death, but you failed to mention the increase in income tax allowance allowance under Osbourne, I know my son for example who is first year into his apprenticeship is more than grateful for the governments increase in what he can earn before tax, especially when I tell him what he would of been paying under Brown.

Obviously I don't believe everybody on benefits is a workshy slacker as you put it, the workshy slackers from the new labour years the Vicky pollard era, now seem to be a bit of a dieing breed under this government and rightly so, I've said before people are more inspired today to get off their bottom get a job or maybe start their own business we likened to be loadsamoney characters today in a comical sense and not Vicky pollards.

But there are still plenty who don't want to play ball, I see these people day in day out with my work,  people who are quite happy to sit home all day playing computer games drinking smoking and useing food banks, you can deny they exist all you want with your statistics facts and figures but out there in the real world they are aplenty, that's why cuts are needed and should be cut further to encourage them in to getting a job, training, or to just break out of their cycle, my compassion is for those that we should be supporting the short term unemployed, how sad it is to hear of someone who has worked hard for years payed their taxes but then finds themselves on the dole through not fault of their own, and then all of a sudden trying to survive on £75 a week, scandalous.

So back to Corbyrn as we know you are a lifelong labour supporter (you didn't even argue my indoctrination point 😀) and it wouldn't matter which way the party swings you are red just the kind Austin Mitchell talked about, now then new Labour was bad very bad for me I will never forgive them in the way in which they tried and succeeded in parts to some extent With their destructive social engineering of the country, but just imagine no dream is probably a better word... Corbyrn actually being leader of our great country...he would make Blairs agenda look xenophobic! He would have our doors taken off the hinges it wouldn't be swamping it would be an infestation, but hey that's ok isn't it Maringer because at least our elderly need looking after, but just one thing you've overlooked immigrants have kids, and immigrants do eventually grow old!!

First of all, thanks for the laugh. For somebody who criticises me for linking articles/reports in the Guardian (not to mention the IFS, OECD etc etc), to post a 'report' from the TaxPayers' Alliance from 2008 shows quite remarkable gall! Either that or you're simply taking the urine. Everybody knows that the TPA is a front for the Tories - it's supported by Tories, paid for by Tories and was established with the aim of reducing the size of government, the ultimate Tory Party wet dream.

It's amusing, also, that you're still trying to make the claim that Osborne's plans were in any way good. As I've poined out on many occasions, Osborne's original "Plan A", the one that the IMF and Ed Balls said would lead to a double dip recession wasn't followed, despite what he (and you) may claim! I've certainly posted links to this article before:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n04/simon-wren-lewis/the-austerity-con

Before you TLDR it, here's a simple diagram taken from the article which shows Osborne's claims about sticking to his "Plan A" are basically total bullshite:

[img]http://cdn.lrb.co.uk/assets/edillus/wren01_3704_01.gif[/img]

Osborne's plans made in 2010 were certainly leading us into a double-dip recession - which is why he quietly changed them in 2012 yet has never admitted he created a new "Plan A"! The fact that the BBC never pointed this out (the figures were publicly available and easy to understand) is one of the reasons that I believe the pro-Tory bias there (I have posted a report in the past from a respected indicating this - of course, you claimed this report was itself biased based on nothing more than a feeling in your water). Not surprising when you consider the BBC head of news is a former editor of The Times, Nick Robinson was head of the Young Conservatives and Andrew Neil is a former editor of The Sunday Times!

As I've noted in the past, the growth lost due to Osborne's policies has lost thousands of pounds per man, woman and child in the country - something which will never be recovered. The economy is now a lot smaller than it would have been if Osborne hadn't pursued his austerian policies so it's no surprise that tax receipts are currently falling far short of what was expected and he's still nowhere near closing the deficit.

As for his reasons for Austerity in the first place? Well, they were bullshit, as Krugman clearly shows here:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion

Onto public vs private sector pay. Here's a useful recent report from the IFS:

http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/comms/r97.pdf

Here's a couple of excerpts from the summary:

Quoted Text

In raw terms, pay levels are higher in the public sector than in the private sector. However, after accounting for differences in education, age and where workers live, the differences are much smaller. Among men, the average public sector pay differential in 2013–14 was close to zero, while among women it was around 8%.

The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecasts that pay will continue to grow faster in the private sector than in the public sector over the next four years. If correct, this implies that the gap between public and private sector pay levels will fall back to levels last seen in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when there were recruitment and retention problems in parts of the public sector. OBR projections also imply further cuts to public sector employment levels, totalling one million between 2010-11 and 2018-19. Delivering both would involve substantial challenges to policymakers.

So, public/private sector pay was pretty much the same for men but women (who are underpaid everywhere) have a slight benefit. This is as last year. This year, with continued public sector pay freezes, the balance is clearly going to swing the other way. The forecast by the OBR implies that, for example, it will soon be difficult for the NHS to employ nurses/doctors etc due to the pay differential between the public and private sectors! Why, it's almost as if the government plans to shaft the NHS, isn't it?

Now, no doubt that public sector pay was a bit higher in comparison to private sector when the coalition came into power, but why should public sector pay freezes below the rate of inflation be a good thing? Wouldn't it have been nice if private sector wages had instead increased at a greater rate to match the difference? Don't try and claim that those poor corporations couldn't afford it, as they have been doing very well since the recession, thanks, Jack:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/corporate-profits

(Select the 'Max' option)

I note that you've still not responded as to whether you think it is fair for the poorest in society to be made worse off due to the tax credit cuts, whilst the wealthier are handed tax breaks. I'm guessing you do, because nothing shows those poor workers what's what like cutting their income, does it? Hope your son does well with his apprenticeship. He'll need to if he's going to have a chance with all the problems the current government is piling onto the young.

The rest of your post is pretty much gibberish. You think that my statistics, facts and figures about poverty don't reflect the real world. Well, where do you think they come from, then? They aren't magically pulled out of the air! You say one thing, I post data which shows this isn't a correct view of the world and you either naysay it or say it is biased.

I've never been indoctrinated by anybody. Most of my friends have the same "I'm all right, Jack" attitude that you share and I doubt any of them voted for Labour. I tend to doubt my parents vote Labour (they read the Daily Mail, FFS). I've also never been a member of a political party though I did register as a 'supporter' to vote for Corbyn in the leadership contest. He's literally the only person in a major political party who has come up with a plan to deal with the completely broken housing market (something your son will be facing very soon). At least he seems to be moving the debate to some degree.

Regarding the ever-increasing numbers of self-employed which are now at record numbers. In fact, a majority of the jobs added over the last 5 years or so are self-employed. Just a pity that it isn't working out very well for most of them:

http://www.newsweek.com/almost-80-uk-self-employed-workers-living-poverty-304168

80% of self-employed workers live in poverty.

I had to chuckle about your claims about "Social Engineering" by the New Labour government! I can almost hear your eyes swivelling from here!

Only a right-wing lunatic could counter the argument that immigration is required now to pay for and look after our swelling numbers of elderly people (with many more baby boomers soon to retire) with a plea worrying about a point 60 years in the future! If you stop immigration now, we will be having countless elderly people dying in squalor in their homes with little or no care in the near future.

Righty-ho. Need to get to work now.

Quoted from Chrisblor

I can't be arsed to hack the rest of your nonsensical post to pieces, but this is total rubbish. A lack of wage growth in any sector is A Bad Thing. Just today it was quietly revealed that the UK's budget defecit had risen to £12.1bn (the highest level since 2011 and considerably higher than expected by analysts). The main reason for this? A fall in tax receipts due to stagnant wage growth. Why's there been a lack of wage growth? Because Gideon Oliver "George" Osborne's supposed economic recovery has been based around an increase in part-time, zero-hour and self-employed jobs as well as further inflation of our ridiculous housing bubble! Only 1 in 40 jobs created since the recession have been full-time (http://www.theguardian.com/bus.....loyee-tuc-employment) and the exchequer's now feeling the effects of this sham recovery through reduced income tax receipts.

A strong public sector with well renumerated staff is necessary for this country to function. Where would the private sector be without a functioning public sector containing things like roads, railway infrastructure, street lights, the police, the fire service and schools? Clearly you don't believe this as you've bought into the "lazy public sector workers" argument spread by the Tories and a complicit media. The wonderful and amazing private sector is hardly picking up the slack and showing the public sector where it's supposedly going wrong either - our national productivity is at the lowest level since World War 2 (http://www.theguardian.com/bus.....-since-wwii-says-ons).

George Osborne is a total fraud. As Maringer has quite clearly pointed out (with an array of well sourced evidence - not just from 'left wing newspapers') it isn't working for the poorest and most vulnerable in society. It's not working for me (a middle-class professional in his mid 20s with a respectable job stuck in rented accommodation with no hope of buying a house in the next decade). It's only working for those who already own a home, already have loads of assets, already have a huge pension saved up. The goal of a civilised society should be to ensure that the next generation are better off than the last. Up until recently that was clearly happening, but it's not any longer.

Here we go another liberal armed with his Guardian I bet you nearly ejaculated over your paper when you see the  'breaking news' lol, anyway I'm surprised we have so many Guardianistas in one place for a tabloid that sells about 100 rags a day, to be fair though they have given the chief U.K. Economist account in which she says 'the government is still on track, and that she expects growth of tax receipts to recover' so let's wait and see what happens in November and stop with the scaremongering.

Obviously I don't want cuts to essential public sector jobs you twonk, its the hundreds of thousands of meaningless jobs that where created under the labour government ensureing a mass rise in our council taxes to pay for it that are now being rightly axed in my opinion.

Give the man a chance there is no one else until UKIP steps up as the main opposition and see where we are in five years, because i'l be the first to stick the boot in if the king of scaremongering Maringer predictions come true, after all Labour just cannot be trusted its no coincidence every time they get booted out of office our economy is in turmoil.

As for you Maringer I'l need a stiff drink tonight (if I have time) to digest and dissect your latest rhetoric.

It's not scaremongering to point out that Osborne's policies have crippled the recovery, increased inequality, hit low-paid workers, destroyed the quality of social care available due to council cuts and failed to reduce the deficit as promised (which was his whole reasoning behind the cuts).

It is also not scaremongering to point out that his plans to run a surplus by the end of parliament (which the buffoon wants to enshrine in law!) rely entirely on an increase of consumer debt to record levels. That's right, to 'fix' the economy, Osborne is expecting us all to borrow more money than we ever have in the past, even before the last recession which some blamed on too much borrowing! These two charts from the OBR illustrate this clearly. Perhaps you'd like to have an even stiffer drink and make a comment about these?

[img]https://commonspace.scot/public/filemanager/graph1.png[/img]

[img]https://commonspace.scot/public/filemanager/graph4.png[/img]

Oh, regarding your idea that the Labour Party is to blame for all economic turmoil in the world, ever, perhaps you can explain why 3 out of the last 4 recessions occurred under a Conservative government? Heath, Thatcher, Thatcher/Major then Brown.

P.S. I don't think the word 'rhetoric' means what you think it does if you class my evidence and data-laced posts as such. Now most of your posts, on the other hand...

Wow, Osborne just can't help piling the excrement on the young, can he?

http://www.theguardian.com/edu.....-and-poor-most-study

Quoted from Maringer

Wow, Osborne just can't help piling the excrement on the young, can he?

http://www.theguardian.com/edu.....-and-poor-most-study

Did you expect anything different? After being mean and stingy in coalition, the people unbelievably gave them a clear mandate to govern alone and they are not going to pass this opportunity by without shafting the weakest in society even more. They have carte blanche to run amok, especially as they probably think the next election is already in the bag too. It's a depressing thought.

Quoted from ginnywings

Did you expect anything different? After being mean and stingy in coalition, the people unbelievably gave them a clear mandate to govern alone and they are not going to pass this opportunity by without shafting the weakest in society even more. They have carte blanche to run amok, especially as they probably think the next election is already in the bag too. It's a depressing thought.

What is more unbelievable is that there are three times as many people who chose not to vote for the selfservatives

Quoted from FishOutOfWater

What is more unbelievable is that there are three times as many people who chose not to vote for the selfservatives

We really need to sort out the way MP'S are elected,

SNP have 48 or whatever seats with less votes then UKIP who have one,

I believe that a hung parliament is good for the country,

If the MP'S do not do as we instruct them,

We hang them   

Quoted from Maringer

First of all, thanks for the laugh. For somebody who criticises me for linking articles/reports in the Guardian (not to mention the IFS, OECD etc etc), to post a 'report' from the TaxPayers' Alliance from 2008 shows quite remarkable gall! Either that or you're simply taking the urine. Everybody knows that the TPA is a front for the Tories - it's supported by Tories, paid for by Tories and was established with the aim of reducing the size of government, the ultimate Tory Party wet dream.

It's amusing, also, that you're still trying to make the claim that Osborne's plans were in any way good. As I've poined out on many occasions, Osborne's original "Plan A", the one that the IMF and Ed Balls said would lead to a double dip recession wasn't followed, despite what he (and you) may claim! I've certainly posted links to this article before:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n04/simon-wren-lewis/the-austerity-con

Before you TLDR it, here's a simple diagram taken from the article which shows Osborne's claims about sticking to his "Plan A" are basically total bullshite:

[img]http://cdn.lrb.co.uk/assets/edillus/wren01_3704_01.gif[/img]

Osborne's plans made in 2010 were certainly leading us into a double-dip recession - which is why he quietly changed them in 2012 yet has never admitted he created a new "Plan A"! The fact that the BBC never pointed this out (the figures were publicly available and easy to understand) is one of the reasons that I believe the pro-Tory bias there (I have posted a report in the past from a respected indicating this - of course, you claimed this report was itself biased based on nothing more than a feeling in your water). Not surprising when you consider the BBC head of news is a former editor of The Times, Nick Robinson was head of the Young Conservatives and Andrew Neil is a former editor of The Sunday Times!

As I've noted in the past, the growth lost due to Osborne's policies has lost thousands of pounds per man, woman and child in the country - something which will never be recovered. The economy is now a lot smaller than it would have been if Osborne hadn't pursued his austerian policies so it's no surprise that tax receipts are currently falling far short of what was expected and he's still nowhere near closing the deficit.

As for his reasons for Austerity in the first place? Well, they were bullshit, as Krugman clearly shows here:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion

Onto public vs private sector pay. Here's a useful recent report from the IFS:

http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/comms/r97.pdf

Here's a couple of excerpts from the summary:



So, public/private sector pay was pretty much the same for men but women (who are underpaid everywhere) have a slight benefit. This is as last year. This year, with continued public sector pay freezes, the balance is clearly going to swing the other way. The forecast by the OBR implies that, for example, it will soon be difficult for the NHS to employ nurses/doctors etc due to the pay differential between the public and private sectors! Why, it's almost as if the government plans to shaft the NHS, isn't it?

Now, no doubt that public sector pay was a bit higher in comparison to private sector when the coalition came into power, but why should public sector pay freezes below the rate of inflation be a good thing? Wouldn't it have been nice if private sector wages had instead increased at a greater rate to match the difference? Don't try and claim that those poor corporations couldn't afford it, as they have been doing very well since the recession, thanks, Jack:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/corporate-profits

(Select the 'Max' option)

I note that you've still not responded as to whether you think it is fair for the poorest in society to be made worse off due to the tax credit cuts, whilst the wealthier are handed tax breaks. I'm guessing you do, because nothing shows those poor workers what's what like cutting their income, does it? Hope your son does well with his apprenticeship. He'll need to if he's going to have a chance with all the problems the current government is piling onto the young.

The rest of your post is pretty much gibberish. You think that my statistics, facts and figures about poverty don't reflect the real world. Well, where do you think they come from, then? They aren't magically pulled out of the air! You say one thing, I post data which shows this isn't a correct view of the world and you either naysay it or say it is biased.

I've never been indoctrinated by anybody. Most of my friends have the same "I'm all right, Jack" attitude that you share and I doubt any of them voted for Labour. I tend to doubt my parents vote Labour (they read the Daily Mail, FFS). I've also never been a member of a political party though I did register as a 'supporter' to vote for Corbyn in the leadership contest. He's literally the only person in a major political party who has come up with a plan to deal with the completely broken housing market (something your son will be facing very soon). At least he seems to be moving the debate to some degree.

Regarding the ever-increasing numbers of self-employed which are now at record numbers. In fact, a majority of the jobs added over the last 5 years or so are self-employed. Just a pity that it isn't working out very well for most of them:

http://www.newsweek.com/almost-80-uk-self-employed-workers-living-poverty-304168

80% of self-employed workers live in poverty.

I had to chuckle about your claims about "Social Engineering" by the New Labour government! I can almost hear your eyes swivelling from here!

Only a right-wing lunatic could counter the argument that immigration is required now to pay for and look after our swelling numbers of elderly people (with many more baby boomers soon to retire) with a plea worrying about a point 60 years in the future! If you stop immigration now, we will be having countless elderly people dying in squalor in their homes with little or no care in the near future.

Righty-ho. Need to get to work now.

And he's off...............talk about going off on a tangent you just can't stick to the thread topic can you....... But wait are you deliberately hijacking this thread in order to take the conversation away from your poster boy?  maybe you feel he's not getting the credit on here you believe he deserves, so you blind us with graphs, bar charts, line charts, and pie charts I didn't see this many charts in 12 years of school your a fanatic! do you live on your own?

Right I'l say it all again "we have done tax credits to death" I thought we gave a good balanced argument from both sides of the fence on the 'tax credit' thread to be fair or at least I thought, but hey if you want to carry the tax credits debate on then do it on there and il happily oblige, now as for George Osbourne, the BBC (where you conveniently failed to mention all the left wing bigwigs), austerity, food banks, private sector, public sector, NHS, poverty, war etc,etc, then start another thread, some of us have a life, or at least limit your topics per post to give myself and others a chance, your like Gordon Brown on acid holding the public purse and not knowing when to stop.

Anyway I still need to respond to some of your drivel.....
let's face it your a hardline Tory hating lefty your like a mouth to a light when it comes to the slightest unfavourable report In the left wing media as your most recent post shows, ( I bet that made your day) you even had the audacity to come back at me with a pretence matter of fact report on austerity by a socialist, Corbyrn supporting blogger!

And at the other end of the spectrum I do sway to the right and tend to favour the right wing media but I will frequent the likes of the Guardian and the Independent to gauge alternative views, (I've posted links to both these rags on here at some time or other to make my point) I used the TPA report because it was the most in depth damning report at the time, a report that wasn't even challenged, Brown himself admitted he made mistakes.

So let's cut out the biased propaganda shall we and stick to the facts....on the economy for a start,  ONS, IMF, CPI yes for example and I will agree, but let's not forget it's early days yet I could mention the inflation figures that supports the chief economic advisors claim the economy is on track, but let's wait and see at least for the cumulative financial year to date figures that will give us a clear indication of where we are heading.

I'm disgusted that you think it's funny what Blair and Mandelson did to this country but this can wait for now because it's not the place, So try not to drift of to much in future Maringer and you might find more people responding to your posts. Good night 😑

Quoted from Maringer

The spending cuts have been an absolutely disastrous policy which have led to the worst recovery from a recession in our country's history. Osborne inherited a decent recovery in 2010 (growth of over 2% and on an upward track), and his austerity cut it dead - we were heading for a double-dip recession and only avoided this because Osborne quietly stopped austerity in 2012, leading to the poor recovery we have seen.

I'm afraid that Brown's policies were in no way socialist. Very centrist (and not a great deal different than the Major government in many respects), didn't attempt to fix the horribly broken housing market, didn't introduce any sort of progressive taxation and inequality (which many studies show is bad for the general economy) soared during the New Labour years. Though not as much as it has increased since 2010.

I'm afraid you're mistaken if you think progressive taxation doesn't work. As noted above, there are plenty of studies which show that progressive taxation leads to more equality and a stronger economy.

Incidentally, as you mention you work in finance, I can understand why you may hold many of the views you've just mentioned because I'm sure you'll be surrounded by people espousing these views. They conveniently forget that it was the financial sector which caused the crash and recession in 2008 and much of the huge national debt we now have came from bailing out the banks. Not that this is anything to do with you, of course!

In fact, there is research which shows a large financial sector in an economy (which doesn't actually produce anything, remember) is actually bad for growth overall. Even the Economist magazine seems happy to accept this:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2015/02/finance-sector-and-growth

You've also apparently bought into the usual poverty myths about 'skivers vs strivers'. They are just that - myths. TV shows of the likes of Benefits Street and Skint show a tiny proportion of the population and the vast majority are nothing like some of the likely characters appearing in those shows.

Anyway, nice to have a civilised tone to a debate, something one or two on this board can't manage.  

Always civilised. I do not watch the shows that you refer to but I do not like the idea of unlimited benefits which Corbyn propose and my opinions are very much my own. Tuition fees will cost me as my kids are likely to go to Uni but I do not expect the state to pay for the education of my kids. I am not a fan of consistent quantative easing. Some of Corbyn's ideals are good but he will be faced by a lot of people like me and he will need to capture middle England or he will go the same way as Foot/Kinnock and friends. Great guys but unelectable.
I do not want to see endless money thrown at the NHS and I do not want open door immigration as I can not see the point on debates on stretched public services when net immigration is so high. Each to their own with politics but Corbyn would need to change his thinking on several issues to get close to getting my vote