Printable View
Do you think it's sensible for governments to run deficits continually at the rates adopted by the western world pre crash?
Why are you against governments living within their means? Again you appear to be advocating giving taxpayers money to the financial institutions in the city.
I appear this, i appear that, you assume this, you assume that ---- yet nothing connected with things i have actually said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lt Col Kojak Slaphead III wrote on Sat, 25 July 2015 10:34
See if you can get it right for changeQuote:
Originally Posted by archibald leitch wrote on Sat, 25 July 2015 10:59
"You can only remove the NEED for austerity if there is a NEED to be removed in the first place "
Straight from the top draw of the Tony Benn / Karl Marx dream book.
"Building a better Britain for all"
"Let us not think about the future until we forget about the current"
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
And other such clap trap
Do you question anything the establishmnet tells you, or are you happy to be spoon fed propaganda and take it all in unquestioningly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Jimmy wrote on Sat, 25 July 2015 11:39
Dont trust any of them Archie - and some less than others.
Fair play that drivel you came out with "You can only remove the NEED for austerity if there is a NEED to be removed in the first place "
Is straight out of the book of meaningless statements Vol 1 - along with others I quoted
If it's the former then isn't your statement in bold above a case of 'do as I say not as I do' whereas if it's the latter would you mind sharing this evidence you have collated.Quote:
Originally Posted by archibald leitch wrote on Sat, 25 July 2015 11:44
you've said previously you were happy for the city to take taxpayers money. There was no 'appear' or 'assume' about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by archibald leitch wrote on Sat, 25 July 2015 10:59
I suppose I should take it as a compliment that you feel the need to constantly misquote me. It is a sign that you cannot debate me with facts and have to resort to lies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lt Col Kojak Slaphead III wrote on Sat, 25 July 2015 13:50
If you don't trust them why are you buying into the need for austerity myth?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Jimmy wrote on Sat, 25 July 2015 12:16
You definitely said you have a better understanding of the cuts to services across the entire public sector. Are you denying you said that?Quote:
Originally Posted by archibald leitch wrote on Sat, 25 July 2015 14:07
Of course i am denying it, cos that is not what i said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lt Col Kojak Slaphead III wrote on Sat, 25 July 2015 20:23
perhaps you can explain how you didn't say what was written down for all to see?Quote:
Originally Posted by archibald leitch wrote on Sat, 25 July 2015 22:38
QED
Rather than spend hours trying to twist my words and make out i have said things i did not say in completely different threads about different subjects in a different context, why not deal with what i have said in the thread that is being debated?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lt Col Kojak Slaphead III wrote on Sun, 26 July 2015 10:12
You definitely said
1. all services had been diminished; and
2. that through your work with unison there aren't many areas (of the public sector) you aren't familiar with.
But now you're saying you didn't. There is little point in discussing further if you're going to blatantly lie.
Not sure why you are getting upset about the idea of someone lying (even though they have not) cos you spend quite a bit of your time on this board lying - and in fact have lied here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lt Col Kojak Slaphead III wrote on Sun, 26 July 2015 11:02
Archie
You definitely said every part of the public sector. That means every part. Can you explain if every part faced cuts, who of the 5.5m public sector workers were excluded? Surely if all parts faced cuts then all parts includes all workers.
You're also clutching at straws if you're trying to suggest that in this context 'the public sector' and 'the 5.5m public sector workers' are different things.
FFS - are you serious? Wriggle wriggle wriggle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lt Col Kojak Slaphead III wrote on Sun, 26 July 2015 11:11
Now since the public sector employs 5.5m people, you are claiming that you know that an organisation of 5.5m people has had services diminished in every part.Quote:
Originally Posted by archibald leitch wrote on Sun, 26 July 2015 11:14
Oh dear. http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Jimmy wrote on Sat, 25 July 2015 10:23
Corbyn seems to me to be the best hope and at the same time the highest risk. But playing safe and trying not to annoy The Sun is no way to achieve change or electoral success. He will get my vote for leader.Quote:
Originally Posted by adz-a32 wrote on Thu, 23 July 2015 20:11
Interesting points Jon. Winning back those that voted UKIP is crucial. If Corbyn is the best man to do that then get him on board.Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1959 wrote on Sun, 26 July 2015 19:46
I think Corbyn has finally achieved some thing I never thought possible on this forum - political unity. He's managed to link the opinions of the common sense voters on the right with the idealists on the left.
Jeremy Corbyn's age is also against him. You are much closer to the Labour movement than me, are there any brilliant young bona fide left wingers likely to emerge to take over as leader of a revitalised, genuinely progressive Labour Party in a few years time?Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1959 wrote on Sun, 26 July 2015 19:46
As you say Corbyn will be 71 come the next election. If he wins this leadership battle we might see the left of the party reinvigorated. Loads of young people are signing up to vote for him. Whilst Corbyn will not be around long term and May not even win leadership battle it is refreshing to see progressive ideas being aired for first time in decades. Hopefully the progressive momentum will keep things rolling after this leadership thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by alfie sherwood wrote on Mon, 27 July 2015 08:54
I'm afraid the Labour Party just don't get it. They are in a state of denial as to the reasons for their defeat. In the 80's they thought people voted for Thatcher because Labour weren't left wing enough and this load of old bollocks has resurfaced again even to the extent of a Militant style insurgence to rig the leadership vote. It's just like Ashes to Ashes although I'd take Keeley Hawes over Yvette Cooper any day. There's an old saying "you don't have to look in the crystal ball when you can read the history book" and it's advice Labour would do well to follow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearcey wrote on Sun, 26 July 2015 20:29
Do you have any links to Corbyns position on increasing immigration? Not heard him speak on the matter myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by NECS wrote on Mon, 27 July 2015 10:16
Good morning archie. Here are a couple of quotes from Jeremy regarding this. The first is a parliamentary question he asked the Foreign Secretary :-
Jeremy Corbyn: I ask the Minister to think quite deeply about this issue. Those poor people who were taken into Harwich are but the tip of an iceberg. There are hundreds of thousands of people around the world who are victims of war, oppression, and human rights abuses. Apparently, many of them come from Afghanistan, which we have occupied for the past 14 years. Does he not think that there is a worldwide humanitarian crisis here that we should be addressing to save lives? It is fine to condemn people traffickers--we can all do that--but we must look at the consequences for those desperate and very poor people.
The other is a qustion he asked about EU and other immigration :-
Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister for once acknowledge the massive contribution made to our economy and our society by those who have migrated to live here and who have sought and gained asylum in this country, which we are bound to offer under the Geneva Convention? Given his rhetoric about EU and other migration, what would he say if EU countries as a whole decided to stop British people from going there to study and to work? What would he say if they all decided that British people were a drain on their economy and put their shutters up against us? What would the rhetoric be from him and, perhaps more importantly, from his colleagues in the Daily Mail?
Now before you get on your high horse I'm not saying what he states is wrong but it is a view which I think you'll agree won't find much favour with UKIP voters. Now I do find his EU views somewhat at odds with a statement he made on his website at the time of the Lisbon Treaty (though after all when all is said and done I suppose he is a politician.
Later on Wednesday, Parliament will finally vote on whether there should be a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, which concerns changing the structure of the European Union. It is unclear what outcome can be expected.
The Liberal Democrats have hitherto supported all aspects of the treaty in debates in the House and delivered their 65 MPs loyally through the lobbies in every division. For some curious reason, they have decided that there ought to be a referendum on EU membership itself, rather than on the huge changes that the treaty proposes. Following their highly choreographed walkout last week, it could be that they are thinking of finally supporting a referendum.
The results of the postal ballots by the I Want A Referendum campaign are very revealing. The campaign sent ballot papers to half of the electorate in 10 constituencies and received between 30 and 40 per cent of them in return. Of those people that voted, around 70 to 80 per cent did so in favour of a referendum. At the very least, this would indicate a much higher level of public understanding of the issue and a much higher preparedness to engage in debate than political commentators have given credit for.
The issues surrounding the treaty are actually very serious, in that it enormously extends the powers of the European Commission and, by the appointment of the president and foreign affairs spokespeople, one can see the development of executive power with some accountability to the commission, very limited accountability to the Council of Ministers or the European Parliament and almost none to national parliaments. What is also explicit in both the Maastricht Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty is the imposition of a market economy on Europe, a control on borrowing made by any member states' government and serious control on the political choices open to any one member state. Thus, the British government had to explain to the European Union why it proposed to take Northern Rock into public ownership, for how long it intended that to be the case and give assurances about the bank's future. EU law makes it almost impossible for a government to take any industry into public ownership of its own free will because it would be accused of giving it illegal state subsidies.
There is a strong socialist argument against the Lisbon Treaty and the economic consequences that flow from it.
Later on Wednesday, every MP will have a choice. Every party that contested the 2005 general election pledged to hold a referendum on the European constitution and, as they all know, the treaty is very little different from the constitution.
Therefore, in all honesty, there ought to be a unanimous vote in the House for a referendum.
Something has to give.Quote:
Originally Posted by alfie sherwood wrote on Mon, 27 July 2015 08:54
2. I take it you didn't see the last budget where taxes increased. That is hardly an ideological attack on the state - in fact, its quite the opposite. The last budget moved left compared to the March 2015 Libdem/Tory coalition budget.Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1959 wrote on Mon, 27 July 2015 12:16
The Tories got 36.9% of the vote in the May election (UKIP got 12.6%).
In other words the Tories got the support of 24.4% of the electorate.
Most polls in the 4 months before the election showed that UKIP supporters had more in common with Jeremy Corbyn than with George Osbourne. On one side was immigration and the EU, but on the other was support for renationalisation of rail and the utilities, major additional investment in public services, a rise in the Minimum Wage to the (real) Living Wage, a higher top rate of tax and increased regulation of the banks and utilities.
I saw the budget, thank you. Osbourne got the headlines he wanted but after a day of unpicking it became clear that this was a budget that (despite a few nibbles at the very rich) took money out of the pockets of the poor (tax credit cuts massively outweighing a rise in Minimum Wage) and into the pockets of the older and better off that disproportionately supported the Tories. He also ensured another round of swinging cuts in central and local government departments and services that will mean whole sections of government closing down (no more scope for 'efficiencies' or salami slicing cuts), and ever greater reliance on charitable donations to the 'deserving poor'. So, exactly what I said!
2. He was refering to the massive slashing of the public sector and the cuts to welfare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lt Col Kojak Slaphead III wrote on Mon, 27 July 2015 16:19
I would agree that much of what Corbyn says will not resonate with many UKIP voters, i think there is an element of that UKIP vote that was simply voting for an alterantive to the status quo. I am not sure that element would be big enough to win an election for Corbyn and i doubt if he wants people voting for him who are not really on the smae page as him. He seems like a pretty straight guy to me and would want to govern by consent.Quote:
Originally Posted by NECS wrote on Mon, 27 July 2015 10:57
What we need is a paradigm shift, with the attitude shown by certain quarters it won't be done but if the top push down a similar methodology the likes of Ford adopted in the 1970s then anything is possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by archibald leitch wrote on Mon, 27 July 2015 19:41
Fordism and the deskilling process involved is one of the reasons we do not have the highly skilled workforce we one had.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lt Col Kojak Slaphead III wrote on Mon, 27 July 2015 20:50
I agree the public sector faced much needed reduction in size to remove the very obvious bloat that had developed. That doesn't mean services were decimated.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BT8n2aim5u...600/denile.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Lt Col Kojak Slaphead III wrote on Mon, 27 July 2015 21:08
Vimana (or even archie)
Which essential public services that we all rely on have been decimated?
No area of the public sector has been immune to cuts. All areas have had to reduce the service they deliver.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lt Col Kojak Slaphead III wrote on Tue, 28 July 2015 07:11