The whole point about the peace process in NI which Corby conveniently forgets is that the IRA had to abandon what they had been fighting for - a united Ireland imposed without the consent of the people of NI. In short, in their key aim - they were defeated - and it was only once they recognised that that a settlement could be achieved.
If they had realised that sooner, a lot of people who died in the Troubles would still be alive. People like Corbyn did nothing to hasten the process. If anything - and he was an irrelevance, however much he and his supporters may now try to pretend that he was some sort of John the Baptist figure, boldly going where governments later timidly followed - people like him slowed down the path to peace by giving succour to the terrorists. That is why people like him were rightly described by Orwell as "useful idiots".
To believe this, you have to hold that the IRA believed that they could have run the British out of Ireland by force of arms, against not only the Army but also the loyalist paramilitaries colluding with Westminster, and that they held this belief throughout the 1980s right up to, and immediately ending at, the point at which they met publicly with John Major (let's set aside the Thatcher-authorised talks with the IRA for argument's sake). This is just not credible to me. It was evident from the loyalist response alone that they could not have believed this. You forget that this was not a merely territorial war and that the IRA was also motivated by other principles like protecting Catholic communities from loyalists.
The IRA were motivated by the money they were making. As were the Loyalist paramilitaries. Stop pretending. The IRA then the PIRA both ended their fatuous campaign of violence and took to politics - they did so because they were losing their violent campaign. Both sides drew back from what was an escalating and sickening spiral of violence. Corbyn and crass lefties were always all set to give in without any fight. They argued with and side by side with the IRA. They did not argue face to face against the IRA. Do you want me to repeat that in case you are deaf? Corbyn argued for and side by side with the IRA. They did not argue face to face against the IRA.
Like many organisations, I suspect that many of the people in charge were "fighting" for different things than the ordinary 'foot soldiers'. Many at the top were basically just old-fashioned criminals, who exploited political messages to give themselves a veneer of legitimacy with their followers.
I don't feel strongly about the railways one way or the other. But why shouldn't those who run the railways make money from fare-paying passengers? Who else should they make money from?
That's a bit like saying "I don't care who runs John Lewis but I'll be damned if they should make any money from their customers."
Or have I misunderstood your point?
I think the use of the term "make money" may be open to misinterpretation. I meant that in this context "make profit from". The provision of the public service aspect of the railways should be either non-profit making or any profit made should be 100% re-invested into the service in terms of improvements not sent out as executive bonuses or shareholder dividends.
There are plenty of other ways for a company making a railway to make a profit but it shouldn't be from gouging passengers. In the same way, the specification for operating the franchise in terms of punctuality, reliability and above all passenger comfort in terms of reducing the number of passengers forced to stand and the time they have to stand should be metrics used to determine whether the franchise is fit for purpose.
Crowding commuters like cattle onto under-stocked services is not a sign of a well-run franchise and shouldn't be viewed as such.
Thanks. I don't have an issue for making the terms of the franchise very strict so that a proper service is provided. Nor with reinvestment i.e. being run as not for profit operation.
Wasn't the issue with nationalisation that there was never enough money for the investment which the railways needed so that the service was poor and the structure becoming very run down?
There was, until the very end, an institutionalised mindset within BR that they were managing a shrinking network. Few people thought that the network usage could be expanded, yet alone the doubling of passenger numbers that has occurred.
As an example, from the deep, dark recesses of my mind: the local manager on one line was asked by a local group to allow a 'friends of our station' group to be formed. The volunteers picked litter, put up flower baskets, and did some other minor changes. ISTR BR fixed the lighting as well. Without any major improvement to services, passenger numbers rocketed.
The manager was replaced after a couple of years, and the new man did not like the group for whatever reason. He barred them from working on the station, and after a time passenger numbers slumped.
When people and managers fought - as famously occurred with the Settle to Carlisle line - services could be improved. It just wasn't generally in BR's mindset to fight until the mid 1980s.
Then there was the internal fighting within BR, some of which was a throwback to the pre-nationalisation Big Four.
It's not just you: JWisemann and Nick_Palmer have done the same thing.
So, apart from the fact you clearly believe there should be no contact with these groups, how should Corbyn or any other MP deal with them ? Are we simply to hear only one side of any given story or are we brave enough to accept the other side may just have some legitimate grievances which we need to understand even though we condemn how they going about addressing those grievances ?
It's your reluctance to deal with how the political process works that is the "wilful dishonesty" on show here.
Let's take NI: the Catholics certainly did have legitimate grievances. A civil rights movement was developing to demand that those grievances be properly addressed. There were political parties which sought to represent the Catholic community - the SDLP above all. So the political process was very very slowly moving in a direction which might have resulted in matters improving. It didn't for all sorts of reasons, including the stupidity of Stormont and the British government. One of those reasons included the resort to violence by the IRA which meant that a huge amount of effort was spent dealing with the violence rather than dealing with the underlying problems. The non-violent parties were systematically undermined and this meant that the resolution which was eventually reached happened far far later and after deaths and injuries which could and should have been avoided.
That is why the final peace accords were labelled as Sunningdale for slow learners. (The Sunningdale agreement happened in 1973.)
Corbyn did nothing to help that process along. If he or anyone else wanted to help they'd have done more addressing the issues in the 1960's and earlier before violence erupted, they'd have done more supporting - rather than undermining - the SDLP. They'd have done more by telling the IRA to stop the violence, to abjure violence so that some semblance of a normal political process could restart. Instead of which they gave legitimacy to violence and thus helped ensure that it lasted longer than it should have done.
Those who appease terror, those who excuse it, those who give it a platform, those who give it or lend it legitimacy, those who give it a voice, those who do not challenge it are not being "brave" or showing "understanding". They are giving it the space to spread and that means the violence will last longer and the grievances which may have once underpinned it will remain unremedied for far longer than would otherwise have been the case.
The brave are those who have to live under the violence, who understand only too well, who see their claims for justice highjacked as a pretext by others, and have to endure not only the original injustice but the further injustices perpetrated by those claiming to act on their behalf.
Do you want me to repeat that in case you are deaf?
I have to break it to you that folk on here can't actually hear what you write, no matter how loudly you shout as you type. A not inconsiderable mercy.
I don't feel strongly about the railways one way or the other. But why shouldn't those who run the railways make money from fare-paying passengers? Who else should they make money from?
That's a bit like saying "I don't care who runs John Lewis but I'll be damned if they should make any money from their customers."
Or have I misunderstood your point?
I think the use of the term "make money" may be open to misinterpretation. I meant that in this context "make profit from". The provision of the public service aspect of the railways should be either non-profit making or any profit made should be 100% re-invested into the service in terms of improvements not sent out as executive bonuses or shareholder dividends.
There are plenty of other ways for a company making a railway to make a profit but it shouldn't be from gouging passengers. In the same way, the specification for operating the franchise in terms of punctuality, reliability and above all passenger comfort in terms of reducing the number of passengers forced to stand and the time they have to stand should be metrics used to determine whether the franchise is fit for purpose.
Crowding commuters like cattle onto under-stocked services is not a sign of a well-run franchise and shouldn't be viewed as such.
What makes you think that a non-profit set-up would: a) be more efficient than a franchised service (including the latter's profits), and b) that a non-profit service would increase services in the way that the current set-up has.
History indicates quite the opposite.
And, yet again, I must bang the drum for another potential system: concessions rather than franchises.
As TSE rightly says, the British Government has frequently dealt with people it calls "terrorists" - beyond Ireland, there's a certain Nelson Mandela and of course those Likud leaders in Israel who were members of the Irgun which blew up British soldiers in the 1940s.
This must have come up 20 times on this forum and every time myself or someone else points out that the criticism isn't that the man deals with terrorists. It's that he supports then as honoured citizens and friends. Yet every time the discussion comes up again, left wingers pretend its just about talking to them, entirely ignoring the actual criticism. I do my best to be polite to people on here, but given that we have clarified the criticism several times, you must surely have seen it and are now just being wilfully dishonest.
It's not just you: JWisemann and Nick_Palmer have done the same thing.
As you will have seen, you are wasting your breath. The answer from them is just more of the same.
Let me repeat my own point again. Corbyn argued for and side by side with the IRA. They did not argue face to face against the IRA.
Although some blame might be attached to David Cameron for the KidsClub scandal, I feel it is unlikely that the British electorate will look at the events surrounding Iranian Camila Batmanghelidjh re child poverty, alternative educational centres, therapy houses and performing arts centres and think, "typical Tory bastards".
Rather an interesting piece and a refreshing change from many of this sites's posts which would make the rocks weep in despair with their recycled propaganda posing as argument.
However it is rather wasted by being written as a devils argument. TSE clearly doesn't believe that Corbyn ia a danger just wants to provoke the more anxious Tories among us - the ones who have regular nightmares about all sorts of things.
Finally TSE heavily and rather patronisingly underates the strength of presentation of the Scottish independence argument last year. Against a hugely hostile press corps (and Nick Robinson et al) it was done rather well - those on this site who don't accept that an independent Scotland would be a viable and successful state really do need to extend their reading beyond the Daily Telegraph.
And there I think is the key difference. In reaching over and beyond the establishment media I think I would back Salmond in Scotland to do a lot better than Corbyn in the UK. And that I fear, plus the bottomless pit of right wing Labour treachery, will be Jeremy's fall.
I don't think there are really that many people even here who think Scotland couldn't be a successful independent state, though no doubt there are a few, there are more who think it would be more successful within the UK but that's not the same thing even if you think it is wrong.
Why are we still talking about this? There was a referendum that both sides agreed would be final.
No one believes that. Believe me I wish it was final. 5-10 years I give it at max.
That would be pointless. Why hold a referendum (which is supposed to make a decision) if one side won't accept a result that goes against them?
It's their reason for existence, they cannot accept it if it goes against.
Agreed, but since the SNP has conceded that they can't call a legitimate referendum and that only HMG can do that, why would HMG permit a second referendum when the SNP has proven that it can't accept Scots' democratic decision?
As ever DC's no 2nd referendum on my watch speech helped propel the SNP to over 60% in the most recent poll by TMS. When looking deeper into the SNP's current support levels, in the Scots born 16-55 group, SNP support is probably now over 70% !!
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the Conservatives are being far too dismissive of the dangers of a Labour party led by Corbyn. Whilst he seems a joke at the moment, we should not underestimate the public's ability to vote for jokes. Just look at Boris as London mayor, or Ed Miliband's entire time as leader.
In 2020 we'll have had 41 years of a Thatcherite or neo-Thatcherite consensus. It might be that large swathes of the public are ready for an alternative, however disastrous that might be,
The Brown premiership was not Thatcherite by any definition, he raised the top tax rate to 50% from the 40% Thatcher left and increased spending as a percentage of GDP to 48%, when Thatcher left office it was nearer 35%
What a hilarious rewriting of history. For what percentage of his near ten years as chancellor was the rate at 50%? What percentage of time as PM?
How many privatisations were there under Blair and Brown? How many PFI projects? What percentage of NHS spending went to private providers? How many NHS hospitals were privatised?
Etc, etc.
Brown was chancellor under Blair, Blair did continue much of the Thatcherite legacy as PM, Brown as PM did not. By the time he left office Brown had increased spending as a percentage of gdp by the greatest amount since the Wilson/Callaghan governments of 1974-1979 and also introduced the first increase in the top tax rate since that time too.
Most of the pfi projects were again carried out under Blair, not Brown, there were no significant privatisations under Brown, it took a Tory led government to privatise Royal Mail, the first significant privatisation since Major privatised the railways
Andrew Neil @afneil 24m24 minutes ago Scotland's "geographic share" of oil revenues plummets to £168m in Q1 this year compared with £1bn 2014 Q1, £1.37bn 2013 Q1, £3bn 2012 Q1.
Yes and we see no difference, has not impacted us one bit , yet the right wing nutters on here claim we will have nothing without it. No oil money and still subsidising England , no wonder Scott is flapping about like an old hen today , slavering and dribbling because we are not poverty stricken.
ANGRY SNP members in Lanarkshire have urged party HQ to investigate the conduct of their local MSP after a branch meeting he oversaw descended into acrimony and chaos.
One witness told the Sunday Herald: “When the recount came in, people started calling Richard Lyle a f*** liar, and saying it was a f***ing disgrace. Some people walked out. It looked like an orchestrated walk-out by Lyle’s supporters.
“Then someone started shoving their finger in a councillor’s face, and they squared up to each other. There were no punches thrown, but at that stage someone called the police.”
Andrew Neil @afneil 24m24 minutes ago Scotland's "geographic share" of oil revenues plummets to £168m in Q1 this year compared with £1bn 2014 Q1, £1.37bn 2013 Q1, £3bn 2012 Q1.
Yes and we see no difference, has not impacted us one bit
Andrew Neil @afneil 24m24 minutes ago Scotland's "geographic share" of oil revenues plummets to £168m in Q1 this year compared with £1bn 2014 Q1, £1.37bn 2013 Q1, £3bn 2012 Q1.
Yes and we see no difference, has not impacted us one bit
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the Conservatives are being far too dismissive of the dangers of a Labour party led by Corbyn. Whilst he seems a joke at the moment, we should not underestimate the public's ability to vote for jokes. Just look at Boris as London mayor, or Ed Miliband's entire time as leader.
In 2020 we'll have had 41 years of a Thatcherite or neo-Thatcherite consensus. It might be that large swathes of the public are ready for an alternative, however disastrous that might be,
The Brown premiership was not Thatcherite by any definition, he raised the top tax rate to 50% from the 40% Thatcher left and increased spending as a percentage of GDP to 48%, when Thatcher left office it was nearer 35%
What a hilarious rewriting of history. For what percentage of his near ten years as chancellor was the rate at 50%? What percentage of time as PM?
How many privatisations were there under Blair and Brown? How many PFI projects? What percentage of NHS spending went to private providers? How many NHS hospitals were privatised?
Etc, etc.
Brown was chancellor under Blair, Blair did continue much of the Thatcherite legacy as PM, Brown as PM did not. By the time he left office Brown had increased spending as a percentage of gdp by the greatest amount since the Wilson/Callaghan governments of 1974-1979 and also introduced the first increase in the top tax rate since that time too.
Most of the pfi projects were again carried out under Blair, not Brown, there were no significant privatisations under Brown, it took a Tory led government to privatise Royal Mail, the first significant privatisation since Major privatised the railways
Oh come on, that's ridiculous. Brown was as much part of the Blairite project as Blair himself.
Besides, Brown as PM did not get very long to do things, as the financial crisis hit him after a year or two. You're disingenuously including spending post-crash.
And you still seem to think that Brown's last-minute increase in the top-rate of tax, after thirteen years, was a sign of some left-wing tendency, instead of a nasty trap he set for the Conservatives.
Must be something in the water , the frothers on here are on steriods today. I reckon Scott fell out of his pushchair at least. Tory Scotland haters seem to have caught some fever and are exhibiting strange symptoms. Time to depart methinks.
I think you are still evading the issue we have with Corbyn.
1. Talking to someone to find out what they have to say & why they are doing what they are doing is one thing. There may be circumstances where it is worthwhile governments doing this.
2. Then there is actively taking steps to support them e.g. making donations, lobbying to let people into the country or proposing a course of action which helps them. Example A: Stop The War opposing action against IS to protect the Yazidis.
3. It is possible to be polite without describing someone as a "friend" or "honourable". The normal way to describe people one meets in the circumstances of 1. is to call them "parties". Calling someone "honourable" is to set out some level of approval.
4. It is also important to consider whether what you are doing is giving people legitimacy in how you treat them. Are you - if you sit and talk with them in a superficially friendly way - giving then legitimacy in a way that will encourage them and encourage others to follow an extremist path? It is a question of the signals you send out, of responsibility. That is particularly important at a time when there is clear evidence of extremist grooming of young minds.
5. Do you - if you do not agree with their views - challenge them, openly, about their views, about why you think they are wrong?
You say that 1. is OK as if that is the extent of the issue.
But it isn't. Corbyn has done 2 - 4 and I've seen no evidence of him ever challenging these people. He says that he has always been against anti-Semitism and there should never be anti-Semitic banners at demonstrations. But 2 minutes on Google can show you photos of him at demos in front of such banners. So how much credence to place on what he says now when there is scrutiny of his actions?
He's not like a Gordon Wilson who went to see the IRA to ask them why they did things like the Eniskillen bomb which killed his daughter.
He behaves like someone who either supports these people because of their views or supports them because they are his enemy's enemy (and is indifferent to their views) or does not care that he is giving them legitimacy. He is behaving irresponsibly and it is his judgment in not just interacting with these people but in how he does it, what he says and does not say, the prolonged nature of the interaction and the common thread to it all - any group which is anti-Western seems to have his unthinking support, no matter how odious, illiberal, unprogressive it is - which is my issue with him.
I'm sorry to repeat this because clearly you disagree. But I will not let you mischaracterise why people like my and SO (and I hope others) profoundly feel that he is a danger to the UK and to the Labour party, which you support, and even to the idea of a worthwhile decent left of centre political party, which I would like to have the option of supporting.
"Crowding commuters like cattle onto under-stocked services is not a sign of a well-run franchise and shouldn't be viewed as such."
Fair enough. I was travelling into Town under the old regime and commuters were treated like cattle then too. So, what would you suggest is the solution to the problem of too many people wanting to travel at the same time to the same destination?
"Crowding commuters like cattle onto under-stocked services is not a sign of a well-run franchise and shouldn't be viewed as such."
Fair enough. I was travelling into Town under the old regime and commuters were treated like cattle then too. So, what would you suggest is the solution to the problem of too many people wanting to travel at the same time to the same destination?
Catapult?
You said nothing about them having to arrive intact. In fact, it would solve the problem after a couple of days ...
"Crowding commuters like cattle onto under-stocked services is not a sign of a well-run franchise and shouldn't be viewed as such."
Fair enough. I was travelling into Town under the old regime and commuters were treated like cattle then too. So, what would you suggest is the solution to the problem of too many people wanting to travel at the same time to the same destination?
Catapult?
You said nothing about them having to arrive intact. In fact, it would solve the problem after a couple of days ...
I think you are still evading the issue we have with Corbyn.
1. Talking to someone to find out what they have to say & why they are doing what they are doing is one thing. There may be circumstances where it is worthwhile governments doing this.
2. Then there is actively taking steps to support them e.g. making donations, lobbying to let people into the country or proposing a course of action which helps them. Example A: Stop The War opposing action against IS to protect the Yazidis.
3. It is possible to be polite without describing someone as a "friend" or "honourable". The normal way to describe people one meets in the circumstances of 1. is to call them "parties". Calling someone "honourable" is to set out some level of approval.
4. It is also important to consider whether what you are doing is giving people legitimacy in how you treat them. Are you - if you sit and talk with them in a superficially friendly way - giving then legitimacy in a way that will encourage them and encourage others to follow an extremist path? It is a question of the signals you send out, of responsibility. That is particularly important at a time when there is clear evidence of extremist grooming of young minds.
5. Do you - if you do not agree with their views - challenge them, openly, about their views, about why you think they are wrong?
You say that 1. is OK as if that is the extent of the issue.
But it isn't. Corbyn has done 2 - 4 and I've seen no evidence of him ever challenging these people. He says that he has always been against anti-Semitism and there should never be anti-Semitic banners at demonstrations. But 2 minutes on Google can show you photos of him at demos in front of such banners. So how much credence to place on what he says now when there is scrutiny of his actions?
He's not...Gordon Wilson [snip] which killed his daughter.
He behaves like someone who either supports these people because of their views or supports them because they are his enemy's enemy (and is indifferent to their views) or does not care that he is giving them legitimacy. He is behaving irresponsibly and it is his judgment in not just interacting with these people but in how he does it, what he says and does not say, the prolonged nature of the interaction and the common thread to it all - any group which is anti-Western seems to have his unthinking support, no matter how odious, illiberal, unprogressive it is - which is my issue with him.
I'm sorry to repeat this because clearly you disagree. But I will not let you mischaracterise why people like my and SO (and I hope others) profoundly feel that he is a danger to the UK and to the Labour party, which you support, and even to the idea of a worthwhile decent left of centre political party, which I would like to have the option of supporting.
It would be interesting to know what the public view on renationalisation of the railways is filtered for those who actually use the service. Ie. those for which a change might reasonably be expected to influence their vote on some level.
It would be interesting to know what the public view on renationalisation of the railways is filtered for those who actually use the service. Ie. those for which a change might reasonably be expected to influence their vote on some level.
In 2020 we'll have had 41 years of a Thatcherite or neo-Thatcherite consensus. It might be that large swathes of the public are ready for an alternative, however disastrous that might be,
The Brown premiership was not Thatcherite by any definition, he raised the top tax rate to 50% from the 40% Thatcher left and increased spending as a percentage of GDP to 48%, when Thatcher left office it was nearer 35%
What a hilarious rewriting of history. For what percentage of his near ten years as chancellor was the rate at 50%? What percentage of time as PM?
How many privatisations were there under Blair and Brown? How many PFI projects? What percentage of NHS spending went to private providers? How many NHS hospitals were privatised?
Etc, etc.
Brown was chancellor under Blair, Blair did continue much of the Thatcherite legacy as PM, Brown as PM did not. By the time he left office Brown had increased spending as a percentage of gdp by the greatest amount since the Wilson/Callaghan governments of 1974-1979 and also introduced the first increase in the top tax rate since that time too.
Most of the pfi projects were again carried out under Blair, not Brown, there were no significant privatisations under Brown, it took a Tory led government to privatise Royal Mail, the first significant privatisation since Major privatised the railways
Oh come on, that's ridiculous. Brown was as much part of the Blairite project as Blair himself.
Besides, Brown as PM did not get very long to do things, as the financial crisis hit him after a year or two. You're disingenuously including spending post-crash.
In which case, you are truly clueless.
Brown was far less supportive of academies and pfi and choice in public services than Blair was. Even accounting for the financial crisis, Brown did not refuse to bail out or nationalise any Bank which asked (even George W Bush let Lehmans go bust) and over the course of his premiership spending rose from just under 40% to nearer 50%, that was not all accounted for by the Crash.
Regardless of politicing or not the fact remains Brown raised the top tax rate to 50%, something Blair explicitly has said he would not have done and something Osborne reversed as soon as he could in 2012 by cutting it to 45%. The question was whether Brown preserved the Thatcherite legacy, on spending and the top rate of tax the answer is unequivocally not
We've also seen how the State has had to step in to rescue ailing rail franchises and of course Network Rail itself. My line (so to speak) has always been I don't care who runs the railways but I'll be damned if they should make any money from the fare-paying passengers (there are many other income generation possibilities).
I don't feel strongly about the railways one way or the other. But why shouldn't those who run the railways make money from fare-paying passengers? Who else should they make money from?
That's a bit like saying "I don't care who runs John Lewis but I'll be damned if they should make any money from their customers."
Or have I misunderstood your point?
Furthermore, isn't the whole criticism of put forward of privatisation that they are not making money from Fare paying passengers? The argument goes that they are making money even though being subsidised by the Government. So they are not making money from fare paying passengers they are making money, so the argument logically goes, from the General Taxpayer.
Left to market forces the railways might well not exist
Andrew Neil @afneil 24m24 minutes ago Scotland's "geographic share" of oil revenues plummets to £168m in Q1 this year compared with £1bn 2014 Q1, £1.37bn 2013 Q1, £3bn 2012 Q1.
Yes and we see no difference, has not impacted us one bit , yet the right wing nutters on here claim we will have nothing without it. No oil money and still subsidising England , no wonder Scott is flapping about like an old hen today , slavering and dribbling because we are not poverty stricken.
That's because Scots wisely rejected independence...!
It would be interesting to know what the public view on renationalisation of the railways is filtered for those who actually use the service. Ie. those for which a change might reasonably be expected to influence their vote on some level.
According to the census, 5.2% commute by train for work. But there will be other reasons for regular travel aside from work.
As an aside, increased rail traffic also improves the lives of people who use roads: if that traffic was not on the railways, it would be further clogging up the road network, or not occurring and harming the economy.
A fair point - however when substantially less than 10% use it for work or other regular travel - arguing in favour of nationalising it looks both ideological and self-interested re union pay bargaining.
It would be interesting to know what the public view on renationalisation of the railways is filtered for those who actually use the service. Ie. those for which a change might reasonably be expected to influence their vote on some level.
According to the census, 5.2% commute by train for work. But there will be other reasons for regular travel aside from work.
As an aside, increased rail traffic also improves the lives of people who use roads: if that traffic was not on the railways, it would be further clogging up the road network, or not occurring and harming the economy.
On TSE's PS, the Corbyn argument is that you have to meet bad people you disagree with and hear what they have to say etc etc. If that is his argument, one would expect Corbyn to have met with Israeli right wingers, for instance, to hear what they have to say, no?
And yet we don't find that. On the contrary, he campaigned to keep the Israeli foreign minister out of the country or arrested for war crimes if she landed here.
He is spinning a line to justify what he is doing. It is pure spin: dishonest spin worthy of Blair. His principles - if they can even be called that - can be summed up thus: is this person an enemy of or opposed to my enemy? If yes, I'm on their side. No further enquiry needed.
Your first paragraph here is a bloody good point. Best thing you posted today by a long way, one of the most interesting points I've seen raised for a while.
"Brown was far less supportive of academies and pfi ... "
I stopped reading there. The idea that Brown was less supportive of PFI than Blair maybe true, but only in the same way that my cat likes prawns less than I do. Brown was a massive user of PFI, he loved the idea and the number of such deals grew hugely during his time as Chancellor.
Brown's use of PFI and his encouragement of local authorities to use such schemes has landed us with massive bills for decades to come. PFI is a wonderful scheme for transferring money from relatively poor taxpayers to the very wealthy, but it kept part of his huge expansion of public spending off the books.
Cyclefree: on your point 1, I definitely don't think that these discussions should necessarily be left to governments. There is a well-established precedent of backbenchers and others acting as outriders to facilitate a sensible dialogue. I don't think that presence at a demonstration means that you agree with everyone else at the demo - on that basis, you could never go to any event, for fear that someone with a different view might turn up. And it's a real stretch to suppose that an MP having a meeting with someone makes radicals rush off to join them.
I don't dispute that people on the left are sometimes naive in trying to establish a common basis for discussion with people who are essentially nuts, or in believing that people who are opposed to western interests always need a hearing. We all decide where to draw the line - in my case it was joining Labour Friends of Palestine as well as Labour Friends of Israel, even though that potentially meant having friendly discussions with Hamas supporters who I fundamentally disagreed with. I felt that Palestine wasn't getting enough of a hearing and it would be helpful to do something about it. Personally I wouldn't have initiated a public meeting with Hamas but I might have attended one, and I'm not inclined to condemn anyone for calling it. The depiction of it as closet anti-semitism is a misunderstanding of what was happening there.
I'll have to leave it there for now as I've got a long translation to finish today. Thanks for the civil discussion!
We've also seen how the State has had to step in to rescue ailing rail franchises and of course Network Rail itself. My line (so to speak) has always been I don't care who runs the railways but I'll be damned if they should make any money from the fare-paying passengers (there are many other income generation possibilities).
I don't feel strongly about the railways one way or the other. But why shouldn't those who run the railways make money from fare-paying passengers? Who else should they make money from?
That's a bit like saying "I don't care who runs John Lewis but I'll be damned if they should make any money from their customers."
Or have I misunderstood your point?
Furthermore, isn't the whole criticism of put forward of privatisation that they are not making money from Fare paying passengers? The argument goes that they are making money even though being subsidised by the Government. So they are not making money from fare paying passengers they are making money, so the argument logically goes, from the General Taxpayer.
Left to market forces the railways might well not exist
What do you think created the railways?
The lack of any alternative. I think the point possibly might have been that left to themselves railways would have gone out of existence some time ago.
Brown was far less supportive of academies and pfi and choice in public services than Blair was. Even accounting for the financial crisis, Brown did not refuse to bail out or nationalise any Bank which asked (even George W Bush let Lehmans go bust) and over the course of his premiership spending rose from just under 40% to nearer 50%, that was not all accounted for by the Crash.
Regardless of politicing or not the fact remains Brown raised the top tax rate to 50%, something Blair explicitly has said he would not have done and something Osborne reversed as soon as he could in 2012 by cutting it to 45%. The question was whether Brown preserved the Thatcherite legacy, on spending and the top rate of tax the answer is unequivocally not
He increased it a month before the election! That's hardly the sign of someone committed to the move, especially after thirteen years in power, and only perverse, deluded fools would think otherwise.
"Brown was far less supportive of academies and pfi and choice in public services than Blair was."
Yet he continued the policies after he became PM. Funny that.
Given how well-organised and thought out the Corbyn campaign has been, you can see why his opponents would give them credit for planning the upcoming Corbynquisition....
This must have come up 20 times on this forum and every time myself or someone else points out that the criticism isn't that the man deals with terrorists. It's that he supports then as honoured citizens and friends. Yet every time the discussion comes up again, left wingers pretend its just about talking to them, entirely ignoring the actual criticism. I do my best to be polite to people on here, but given that we have clarified the criticism several times, you must surely have seen it and are now just being wilfully dishonest.
It's not just you: JWisemann and Nick_Palmer have done the same thing.
So, apart from the fact you clearly believe there should be no contact with these groups, how should Corbyn or any other MP deal with them ? Are we simply to hear only one side of any given story or are we brave enough to accept the other side may just have some legitimate grievances which we need to understand even though we condemn how they going about addressing those grievances ?
It's your reluctance to deal with how the political process works that is the "wilful dishonesty" on show here.
I don't know how many ways there are to explain this. I say the criticism is not about meeting with these groups. You respond to this by saying "you are wrong to say we should not meet with them". It's like banging my head against the wall.
In what way would you suggest the meeting takes place? No smiling? No handshake? No chocolate hobnobs with tea? Wagging the finger and telling them they've been a very naughty boy? How is that to work exactly? When members of the current Government met with King Abdullah of the KSA, did they have stiff words about numbers of beheadings, sponsorship of terror, brutal repression of human rights activists, women being chattels? Did they buggery. Prince Charles even dressed himself up in a costume and danced for them! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2562627/Charles-Arabia-Prince-stars-Saudi-dance-swords.html
To imagine that diplomacy can work another way is naive or disingenuous.
On TSE's PS, the Corbyn argument is that you have to meet bad people you disagree with and hear what they have to say etc etc. If that is his argument, one would expect Corbyn to have met with Israeli right wingers, for instance, to hear what they have to say, no?
Your first paragraph here is a bloody good point. Best thing you posted today by a long way, one of the most interesting points I've seen raised for a while.
That's actually been raised before, and his reply was:
"I’ve also met people in Likud and very many right-wing parties in Israel because at some point there has to be talks."
Whether a rainbow coalition is feasible depends on whether the idea of Labour working with the SNP was fully priced into the 2015 result. It was obviously a massive factor for a lot of voters and I can't see how it would be more palatable in 2020. The SNP's early form in parliament seems to get noticed and to try and rock the boat, not look like a party that could take a responsible role in government.
Brown was far less supportive of academies and pfi and choice in public services than Blair was. Even accounting for the financial crisis, Brown did not refuse to bail out or nationalise any Bank which asked (even George W Bush let Lehmans go bust) and over the course of his premiership spending rose from just under 40% to nearer 50%, that was not all accounted for by the Crash.
Regardless of politicing or not the fact remains Brown raised the top tax rate to 50%, something Blair explicitly has said he would not have done and something Osborne reversed as soon as he could in 2012 by cutting it to 45%. The question was whether Brown preserved the Thatcherite legacy, on spending and the top rate of tax the answer is unequivocally not
He increased it a month before the election! That's hardly the sign of someone committed to the move, especially after thirteen years in power, and only perverse, deluded fools would think otherwise.
"Brown was far less supportive of academies and pfi and choice in public services than Blair was."
Yet he continued the policies after he became PM. Funny that.
He had already increased it from 40% to 45% in 2009 before he increased it to 50%, so it was a consistent trend from the Brown-Darling government to increase the top tax rate from the 40% Lawson cut it to under Thatcher and which Major and Blair had kept.
There was no significant pushing of academies under Brown or pfi under Brown, it took the Tory led government to push through expansion of academies and free schools.
Cyclefree: on your point 1, I definitely don't think that these discussions should necessarily be left to governments. There is a well-established precedent of backbenchers and others acting as outriders to facilitate a sensible dialogue. I don't think that presence at a demonstration means that you agree with everyone else at the demo - on that basis, you could never go to any event, for fear that someone with a different view might turn up. And it's a real stretch to suppose that an MP having a meeting with someone makes radicals rush off to join them.
I don't dispute that people on the left are sometimes naive in trying to establish a common basis for discussion with people who are essentially nuts, or in believing that people who are opposed to western interests always need a hearing. We all decide where to draw the line - in my case it was joining Labour Friends of Palestine as well as Labour Friends of Israel, even though that potentially meant having friendly discussions with Hamas supporters who I fundamentally disagreed with. I felt that Palestine wasn't getting enough of a hearing and it would be helpful to do something about it. Personally I wouldn't have initiated a public meeting with Hamas but I might have attended one, and I'm not inclined to condemn anyone for calling it. The depiction of it as closet anti-semitism is a misunderstanding of what was happening there.
I'll have to leave it there for now as I've got a long translation to finish today. Thanks for the civil discussion!
I'd like to thank Nick for posting (relatively - and as much as can be expected in his circumstances) so openly on PB. I think there is a lot of thought, and very little disingenuity, when Nick posts, regardless of whether we find his explanations or reasonings sound.
For what it's worth, I think Corbyn has had some more-than-distinctly-dubious choices of "friend" and that it is likely to come back to bite Labour later. Impressions matter as well as facts. I don't think an NP-style exculpation is going to be found satisfactory by a sizeable chunk of the electorate. How big a downside that is a part of the trade-off with the people he manages to re-engage versus the number he puts off.
OT...Apparently the French train gunman has got a corker of a Lawyer..he claims his client found the bag with guns on the platform in Brussels...and then he did what any normal person would do...take them on board a rain and start shooting at people..natch..I bet he loves his mum and has a cute pet puppy too..
Agreed. So will the writers. So the question remains what era would suit a gang of ageing juveniles? Would it go back from WW1 or forward? My guess would be Thatcher, but really could they be so crass? Does Ben Elton want to reprise all his old mistakes?
PS Just seen Bernie E on TV looking for all the world like Lofty Sugden from It Aint Half Hot Mum. (Don Estell)
Wasn't it only 35 years ago that 365 economists signed up to attack Thatcher's policies.
One for every day of the year. For this lot it's one for every day in the wilderness.
Thatcher's early economic policies of extreme contraction in demand were predicted to be disastrous in advance by a great many people, not just the famous economists in their letter. When put in into practice they were indeed disastrous just as predicted. Looking back with the benefit of hindsight it is easy to confirm that the economists were in the right. Anyone who really believes that the Conservatives have a good track record of economic competence is clearly not very well informed.
Brown was far less supportive of academies and pfi and choice in public services than Blair was. Even accounting for the financial crisis, Brown did not refuse to bail out or nationalise any Bank which asked (even George W Bush let Lehmans go bust) and over the course of his premiership spending rose from just under 40% to nearer 50%, that was not all accounted for by the Crash.
Regardless of politicing or not the fact remains Brown raised the top tax rate to 50%, something Blair explicitly has said he would not have done and something Osborne reversed as soon as he could in 2012 by cutting it to 45%. The question was whether Brown preserved the Thatcherite legacy, on spending and the top rate of tax the answer is unequivocally not
He increased it a month before the election! That's hardly the sign of someone committed to the move, especially after thirteen years in power, and only perverse, deluded fools would think otherwise.
"Brown was far less supportive of academies and pfi and choice in public services than Blair was."
Yet he continued the policies after he became PM. Funny that.
He had already increased it from 40% to 45% in 2009 before he increased it to 50%, so it was a consistent trend from the Brown-Darling government to increase the top tax rate from the 40% Lawson cut it to under Thatcher and which Major and Blair had kept.
There was no pushing of academies under Brown or pfi under Brown, it took the Tory led government to push through expansion of academies and free schools.
Lordy, you're making it sound as though Brown was Blair's poodle, doing only what his master said and having no responsibility for his own actions when chancellor. As the Brownite plotting shows, this was far from the truth.
And as far as I am aware, he did not increase it to 45p in 2009. He announced it would be increased to 45p in 2011, and at a later budget increased the amount to 50p, and brought the measure forward to April 2010.
On TSE's PS, the Corbyn argument is that you have to meet bad people you disagree with and hear what they have to say etc etc. If that is his argument, one would expect Corbyn to have met with Israeli right wingers, for instance, to hear what they have to say, no?
Your first paragraph here is a bloody good point. Best thing you posted today by a long way, one of the most interesting points I've seen raised for a while.
That's actually been raised before, and his reply was:
"I’ve also met people in Likud and very many right-wing parties in Israel because at some point there has to be talks."
Brown was far less supportive of academies and pfi and choice in public services than Blair was. Even accounting for the financial crisis, Brown did not refuse to bail out or nationalise any Bank which asked (even George W Bush let Lehmans go bust) and over the course of his premiership spending rose from just under 40% to nearer 50%, that was not all accounted for by the Crash.
Regardless of politicing or not the fact remains Brown raised the top tax rate to 50%, something Blair explicitly has said he would not have done and something Osborne reversed as soon as he could in 2012 by cutting it to 45%. The question was whether Brown preserved the Thatcherite legacy, on spending and the top rate of tax the answer is unequivocally not
He increased it a month before the election! That's hardly the sign of someone committed to the move, especially after thirteen years in power, and only perverse, deluded fools would think otherwise.
"Brown was far less supportive of academies and pfi and choice in public services than Blair was."
Yet he continued the policies after he became PM. Funny that.
He had already increased it from 40% to 45% in 2009 before he increased it to 50%, so it was a consistent trend from the Brown-Darling government to increase the top tax rate from the 40% Lawson cut it to under Thatcher and which Major and Blair had kept.
There was no pushing of academies under Brown or pfi under Brown, it took the Tory led government to push through expansion of academies and free schools.
Lordy, you're making it sound as though Brown was Blair's poodle, doing only what his master said and having no responsibility for his own actions when chancellor. As the Brownite plotting shows, this was far from the truth.
And as far as I am aware, he did not increase it to 45p in 2009. He announced it would be increased to 45p in 2011, and at a later budget increased the amount to 50p, and brought the measure forward to April 2010.
I'm pretty sure no-one paid the 45p rate ...
Yes, so by April 2010 there had been a 10% increase in the top rate paid by the highest earners compared to the 40% top tax rate Thatcher had left in 1990, so I repeat Brown unequivocally did not preserve the Thatcherite legacy
On TSE's PS, the Corbyn argument is that you have to meet bad people you disagree with and hear what they have to say etc etc. If that is his argument, one would expect Corbyn to have met with Israeli right wingers, for instance, to hear what they have to say, no?
Your first paragraph here is a bloody good point. Best thing you posted today by a long way, one of the most interesting points I've seen raised for a while.
That's actually been raised before, and his reply was:
"I’ve also met people in Likud and very many right-wing parties in Israel because at some point there has to be talks."
On TSE's PS, the Corbyn argument is that you have to meet bad people you disagree with and hear what they have to say etc etc. If that is his argument, one would expect Corbyn to have met with Israeli right wingers, for instance, to hear what they have to say, no?
Your first paragraph here is a bloody good point. Best thing you posted today by a long way, one of the most interesting points I've seen raised for a while.
That's actually been raised before, and his reply was:
"I’ve also met people in Likud and very many right-wing parties in Israel because at some point there has to be talks."
I think it is entirely fair to say that his approach is one-sided. I am sure the logical response is that the present situation is one-sided and he merely intends to redress the balance, but the take-home message the electorate is getting about "what side" Corbyn is on (and yes, the world is not a binary place torn between two sides on every issue, but in the limited space the media has to summarise what is going on, and the partial information vacuum that constitutes the court of public opinion, it comes pretty close) is that he is on "their" side.
Essentially, the likes of Corbyn are not half as keen to publicise their meetings with "bad guys who are regarded as bad guys by his own fellow-travellers" as they are meetings with "bad guys who are regarded as heroic, if not actively good, by their fellow-travellers, regardless of disagreements political violence or human rights." It doesn't give an impression of even-handedness even if more is going on behind the scenes than meets the eye.
OT...Apparently the French train gunman has got a corker of a Lawyer..he claims his client found the bag with guns on the platform in Brussels...and then he did what any normal person would do...take them on board a rain and start shooting at people..natch..I bet he loves his mum and has a cute pet puppy too..
Believe it or not in the 70's (height of IRA bombing campaign) I was on an intercity to London when a bag was discovered at the far end of the carriage. I saw with my own eyes the guard pull out two double barrelled shot guns and a handful of grenades. The guard did what you would expect - he threw them all out of the door window, grenades and all. Grenades... A man was in the toilet and at first would not come out. Somewhat squeaky bum time, but when he did he was able to produce paperwork or something to show they were all dummies. Not unreasonably he asked where his gear was. As his jaw dropped I almost, almost, felt sorry for him.
Brown was far less supportive of academies and pfi and choice in public services than Blair was. Even accounting for the financial crisis, Brown did not refuse to bail out or nationalise any Bank which asked (even George W Bush let Lehmans go bust) and over the course of his premiership spending rose from just under 40% to nearer 50%, that was not all accounted for by the Crash.
Regardless of politicing or not the fact remains Brown raised the top tax rate to 50%, something Blair explicitly has said he would not have done and something Osborne reversed as soon as he could in 2012 by cutting it to 45%. The question was whether Brown preserved the Thatcherite legacy, on spending and the top rate of tax the answer is unequivocally not
He increased it a month before the election! That's hardly the sign of someone committed to the move, especially after thirteen years in power, and only perverse, deluded fools would think otherwise.
"Brown was far less supportive of academies and pfi and choice in public services than Blair was."
Yet he continued the policies after he became PM. Funny that.
He had already increased it from 40% to 45% in 2009 before he increased it to 50%, so it was a consistent trend from the Brown-Darling government to increase the top tax rate from the 40% Lawson cut it to under Thatcher and which Major and Blair had kept.
There was no pushing of academies under Brown or pfi under Brown, it took the Tory led government to push through expansion of academies and free schools.
Lordy, you're making it sound as though Brown was Blair's poodle, doing only what his master said and having no responsibility for his own actions when chancellor. As the Brownite plotting shows, this was far from the truth.
And as far as I am aware, he did not increase it to 45p in 2009. He announced it would be increased to 45p in 2011, and at a later budget increased the amount to 50p, and brought the measure forward to April 2010.
I'm pretty sure no-one paid the 45p rate ...
Yes, so by April 2010 there had been a 10% increase in the top rate paid by the highest earners compared to the 40% top tax rate Thatcher had left in 1990, so I repeat Brown unequivocally did not preserve the Thatcherite legacy
Yes, a 10% increase for a month. Out of thirteen years. Not out of a belief in it, but as a trap for the incoming government.
So we have privatisations, PFI, academies, et al. He was preserving the Thatcherite legacy.
About the only way he did not do so was in his firm belief in unsound money.
Oh and another thing re Brown and his wretched PFI deals.
PFI can work very well for a simple fixed asset with a predictable pattern/amount of use, such as bridge or a road. In those circumstances both sides can understand what the costs and risks are. PFI deals are an appalling idea for complex assets where the ongoing use and needs are totally unpredictable (e.g. schools, hospitals and police stations). The treasury told Brown this. He went ahead with such deals despite the best advice and so we now get events such as hospitals paying a fortune for minor changes to their infrastructure (e.g. wiring in a new plug) and soon public buildings that are no longer required but cannot be closed as we have contracted to pay for their use.
I know for an absolute fact that just a couple of years ago at least one very wealthy family trust was buying up PFI contracts (yes, there is even a secondary market in them) as they provided a solid income stream to balance their investment portfolio.
Truly, the damage that Brown did to the prosperity of the ordinary people of the UK in his insane desire to get the top job has yet to be calculated.
Oh and another thing re Brown and his wretched PFI deals.
PFI can work very well for a simple fixed asset with a predictable pattern/amount of use, such as bridge or a road. In those circumstances both sides can understand what the costs and risks are. PFI deals are an appalling idea for complex assets where the ongoing use and needs are totally unpredictable (e.g. schools, hospitals and police stations). The treasury told Brown this. He went ahead with such deals despite the best advice and so we now get events such as hospitals paying a fortune for minor changes to their infrastructure (e.g. wiring in a new plug) and soon public buildings that are no longer required but cannot be closed as we have contracted to pay for their use.
I know for an absolute fact that just a couple of years ago at least one very wealthy family trust was buying up PFI contracts (yes, there is even a secondary market in them) as they provided a solid income stream to balance their investment portfolio.
Truly, the damage that Brown did to the prosperity of the ordinary people of the UK in his insane desire to get the top job has yet to be calculated.
Mr @calum As a thoughtful SNPer, what do you think the impact of the 70% fall in the oil price will be on SIndy?
Given it was a key argument in the campaign at £100+.
I think focusing on the price of oil today is not that relevant to SNPers views on independence - its the Unionist parties, political commentators and a few folks on this site who seem completely obsessed with the oil price. Most Scots are just glad that fuel is cheaper and very few lose any sleep about the oil price.
Aberdeen is clearly the city where folks are much more aware of the oil industry, however even here production levels matter more than price, Scottish oil production is at a 15 year high and due to tax incentives, belatedly introduced in the budget, oil companies are continuing to invest. The Coalition's 3 month delay in introducing the tax incentives in a naïve attempt to damage the SNP, cost thousands of jobs.
From the SNP perspective oil taxes over the last 35 years constitutes a £300 billion transfer of wealth to London and the South East with Scotland receiving little direct benefit from these revenues. Having lived and worked in London for most of the last 30 years I'm happy to admit that I benefited particularly in the 1980s and 1990s as these revenues were used to re-gentrify London. In their recent Northern Powerhouse announcements both Cameron and Osbo have admitted that for to long investment has been focused on London and the South East.
In terms of what the SNP person on the street believes. I think they view Scotland as having a diverse economy and probably do buy the SNP line that all revenues are a bonus. Scott and the likes of Kevin Hauge can huff and puff all they like about the oil price, however they're shouting in an echo chamber.
Sounds like he's going to be encouraging, indeed leading, direct action against any Government policy he disagrees with. When was the last leader of the Oppostion to get themselves arrested?
"Our opposition cannot be limited to the parliamentary chambers and TV studios of Westminster. Labour is best when it is a movement, and that movement has swelled to an enthusiastic 600,000 who will decide this leadership election. Once that is over, we face a bigger task: to force this government to abandon its free-market dogma and become the strategic state our society needs. That challenge begins on 12 September."
Not quite the same, but 61 officers resigning their commission rather than follow the Cabinet's office is pretty unusual
Arthur Bonar Law never quite crossed the line, but he got very close to encouraging armed insurrection as he felt that loyalty to the Crown over-rode loyalty to the Crown-in-Parliament
And Edward Carson, as Solicitor General, raised, trained and armed a volunteer force. They even had their own tanks and air force... he described it in a private letter as 'taking the high road to treason and despair'.
Brown was far less supportive of academies and pfi and choice in public services than Blair was. Even accounting for the financial crisis, Brown did not refuse to bail out or nationalise any Bank which asked (even George W Bush let Lehmans go bust) and over the course of his premiership spending rose from just under 40% to nearer 50%, that was not all accounted for by the Crash.
Regardless of politicing or not the fact remains Brown raised the top tax rate to 50%, something Blair explicitly has said he would not have done and something Osborne reversed as soon as he could in 2012 by cutting it to 45%. The question was whether Brown preserved the Thatcherite legacy, on spending and the top rate of tax the answer is unequivocally not
He increased it a month before the election! That's hardly the sign of someone committed to the move, especially after thirteen years in power, and only perverse, deluded fools would think otherwise.
"Brown was far less supportive of academies and pfi and choice in public services than Blair was."
Yet he continued the policies after he became PM. Funny that.
He had already increased it from 40% to 45% in 2009 before he increased it to 50%, so it was a consistent trend from the Brown-Darling government to increase the top tax rate from the 40% Lawson cut it to under Thatcher and which Major and Blair had kept.
There was no pushing of academies under Brown or pfi under Brown, it took the Tory led government to push through expansion of academies and free schools.
Lordy, you're making it sound as though Brown was Blair's poodle, doing only what his master said and having no responsibility for his own actions when chancellor. As the Brownite plotting shows, this was far from the truth.
And as far as I am aware, he did not increase it to 45p in 2009. He announced it would be increased to 45p in 2011, and at a later budget increased the amount to 50p, and brought the measure forward to April 2010.
I'm pretty sure no-one paid the 45p rate ...
Yes, so by April 2010 there had been a 10% increase in the top rate paid by the highest earners compared to the 40% top tax rate Thatcher had left in 1990, so I repeat Brown unequivocally did not preserve the Thatcherite legacy
Must be something in the water , the frothers on here are on steriods today. I reckon Scott fell out of his pushchair at least. Tory Scotland haters seem to have caught some fever and are exhibiting strange symptoms. Time to depart methinks.
Don't do it! It really cannot be that bad living in SNP Scotland.
The problem for Labour with the thinking in tse's article and danny blanchflower's nonsense is that they give some hope that Corbyn may not be so bad. It is the hope that will stop Labour from ending the Corbyn car crash early. It is this hope that dooms Labour.
Re my point 1, of course backbenchers might be used as outriders for talks. That sort of thing can make sense. Provides deniability etc. But there is absolutely no evidence that that is what Corbyn was doing. So his claim that somehow by talking to the IRA he was facilitating what later happened is so much bunkum.
As for his claim that he has spoken to right wing Israelis, I'd like to see the evidence. I've found none. All I've found is him campaigning to stop us hearing from the Israeli Foreign Minister. Has he invited some of the more revolting groups within Israel to speak at Parliament? Has he called them "friends" and "honourable"? He has not been even-handed. He is not someone like, say, Jimmy Carter who has actively sought to talk to a wide range of people in order to facilitate peace talks, even if he could be criticised for naivety.
But, in any case, I don't think that failing to challenge anti-Semites (and his excuses for this are, frankly, piss poor - "He didn't say anything anti-Semitic in my presence" is an insult to our intelligence) is not excused by him failing to challenge those who wish to slaughter all Palestinians, for instance.
Having "principles" is not something to be admired if the principles you have are revolting.
He has made a virtue of saying that all his life he has stood up for the "oppressed". When it is pointed out that he is a bit selective about who he defines as "oppressed" or that some of those "oppressed" people are themselves pretty oppressive (Hamas throw Fatah people off buildings, for instance) then he claims that he did not know or they didn't do bad things while he was there or comes out with meaningless guff which is instantly contradicted by his own actions.
He's not even consistent about standing up for his own "principles". He's embarrassed when the contradictions and difficulties are pointed out and questions raised and retreats to bluff, spin and anger.
Must be something in the water , the frothers on here are on steriods today. I reckon Scott fell out of his pushchair at least. Tory Scotland haters seem to have caught some fever and are exhibiting strange symptoms. Time to depart methinks.
Don't do it! It really cannot be that bad living in SNP Scotland.
The night sky over London was thick with choking black smoke, but in the hellish glow of the flames rising from a myriad burning buildings, the rioters, looters and demonstrators fighting on the city streets could just make out the United Nations helicopter taking Jeremy Corbyn away from 10 Downing Street to his retirement cottage in Ireland.
The night sky over London was thick with choking black smoke, but in the hellish glow of the flames rising from a myriad burning buildings, the rioters, looters and demonstrators fighting on the city streets could just make out the United Nations helicopter taking Jeremy Corbyn away from 10 Downing Street to his retirement cottage in Ireland.
All this specious but fine sounding guff about Corbyn being naive but well meaning, an outrider for governments, doing his best with difficult people, blah blah, might be just about credible (it isn't, but let's run with this) if the Left would be equally as tolerant of a potential Tory leader known for associating with Fascists, far right parties, Israeli settlers, fundamentalist Mormons, anti-abortion groups, General Pinochet, pro-apartheid South Africans, and Mussolini's grand daughter.
Exactly. Nick Palmer can now stop posting, and perhaps take the rest of the day off, instead of further embarrassing himself.
Using the central bank to print money to pay for government spending is unlawful under EU law. You'd get Carney resigning and would have to bring the BoE back under government control through legislation.
Nationalisation without compensation would also be unlawful. There would also be ECHR challenges.
About the only people a Corbyn led government would be good for would be the lawyers.
I don't think, to be fair, he said nationalisation without compensation.
What he said was that is Osborne sold any more assets on an undervalued basis, he reserved the right either to cancel the sale without compensation (i.e. presumably just to return the purchase price) or to adjust the compensation payable to reflect the extent of the undervaluation
Sunday Times: foreign aid donated by Britain to the following countries
India £430m China £21.6m Brazil £15m South Africa £63m Turkey £5.5m
Turkey's been doing an admirable job (with some caveats) in dealing with the 1.6 million refugees from Syria that are on, and within, its borders. Whether you like or loathe Erdogan, his AKP government have dealt with this massive strain far better than any other neighbouring country, and have spent over $4.5 billion on them before the end of least year. If the £5.5 million can help them in that, good.
Using the central bank to print money to pay for government spending is unlawful under EU law. You'd get Carney resigning and would have to bring the BoE back under government control through legislation.
Nationalisation without compensation would also be unlawful. There would also be ECHR challenges.
About the only people a Corbyn led government would be good for would be the lawyers.
I don't think, to be fair, he said nationalisation without compensation.
What he said was that is Osborne sold any more assets on an undervalued basis, he reserved the right either to cancel the sale without compensation (i.e. presumably just to return the purchase price) or to adjust the compensation payable to reflect the extent of the undervaluation
Who decides on what the valuations should have been? If it is people like him, you can imagine the valuations they come up with will be massively overinflated ...
Basically, whatever else his strengths, I don't think anyone can trust Corbyn on economics.
Using the central bank to print money to pay for government spending is unlawful under EU law. You'd get Carney resigning and would have to bring the BoE back under government control through legislation.
Nationalisation without compensation would also be unlawful. There would also be ECHR challenges.
About the only people a Corbyn led government would be good for would be the lawyers.
I don't think, to be fair, he said nationalisation without compensation.
What he said was that is Osborne sold any more assets on an undervalued basis, he reserved the right either to cancel the sale without compensation (i.e. presumably just to return the purchase price) or to adjust the compensation payable to reflect the extent of the undervaluation
An asset is only worth what someone will pay for it. How is he going to establish that something was sold at an undervalue, especially since the fear of it being renationalised would almost certainly depress the value?
More work for lawyers. And bankers. Yay!!
And if he has to pay to renationalise, where is the money going to come from? You and me. Or printing it. Either way, all of us will be stuffed.
The night sky over London was thick with choking black smoke, but in the hellish glow of the flames rising from a myriad burning buildings, the rioters, looters and demonstrators fighting on the city streets could just make out the United Nations helicopter taking Jeremy Corbyn away from 10 Downing Street to his retirement cottage in Ireland.
Re my point 1, of course backbenchers might be used as outriders for talks. That sort of thing can make sense. Provides deniability etc. But there is absolutely no evidence that that is what Corbyn was doing. So his claim that somehow by talking to the IRA he was facilitating what later happened is so much bunkum.
As for his claim that he has spoken to right wing Israelis, I'd like to see the evidence. I've found none. All I've found is him campaigning to stop us hearing from the Israeli Foreign Minister. Has he invited some of the more revolting groups within Israel to speak at Parliament? Has he called them "friends" and "honourable"? He has not been even-handed. He is not someone like, say, Jimmy Carter who has actively sought to talk to a wide range of people in order to facilitate peace talks, even if he could be criticised for naivety.
But, in any case, I don't think that failing to challenge anti-Semites (and his excuses for this are, frankly, piss poor - "He didn't say anything anti-Semitic in my presence" is an insult to our intelligence) is not excused by him failing to challenge those who wish to slaughter all Palestinians, for instance.
Having "principles" is not something to be admired if the principles you have are revolting.
He has made a virtue of saying that all his life he has stood up for the "oppressed". When it is pointed out that he is a bit selective about who he defines as "oppressed" or that some of those "oppressed" people are themselves pretty oppressive (Hamas throw Fatah people off buildings, for instance) then he claims that he did not know or they didn't do bad things while he was there or comes out with meaningless guff which is instantly contradicted by his own actions.
He's not even consistent about standing up for his own "principles". He's embarrassed when the contradictions and difficulties are pointed out and questions raised and retreats to bluff, spin and anger.
I think this is the key - his actions require a lot of very specific contextualising, and careful omissions, to make it unconcerning (or even if not that his actions were concerning, then a lot of omission and contextualising to make it accord with what he is claiming his intentions were).
Using the central bank to print money to pay for government spending is unlawful under EU law. You'd get Carney resigning and would have to bring the BoE back under government control through legislation.
Nationalisation without compensation would also be unlawful. There would also be ECHR challenges.
About the only people a Corbyn led government would be good for would be the lawyers.
I don't think, to be fair, he said nationalisation without compensation.
What he said was that is Osborne sold any more assets on an undervalued basis, he reserved the right either to cancel the sale without compensation (i.e. presumably just to return the purchase price) or to adjust the compensation payable to reflect the extent of the undervaluation
How would he determine "undervaluation"? The shares sold in relation to RBS for example are a very bad example were sold at market price - the accusation was that they were sold "at a loss" (a particularly meaningless accusation - since the fact of the loss was due entirely to what they were purchased at, and should have no bearing on the decision to sell now).
Furthermore even if public assets were sold at supposed knock down prices (eg. Royal Mail) - then the shares will likely have passed through several hands since then. The holders of the shares at time of repurchase will likely not be those who benefitted from the original "undervaluation".
CIF has reached it's nadir surely in terms of utter bonkers comments.
One of them compared the Ashley Madison thing, to Cilla Black voting Tory (yes, really) trying to imply that Cilla Black voting Tory was far worse morally than signing up to a cheating website.
It should be noted that Corbyn's economic pronouncements are not reserving his comments to Tory Governments. Except to the extent that he considers the Labour government from 1997 to 2010 a "Tory" Government. He basically sees any decision taken over the last 35 years as effectively illegitimate and open to challenge/reversal.
Miss Apocalypse, worth noting some gay men in Muslim countries (whose regimes are not exactly gay-friendly) used Ashley Madison rather than better known apps like Grindr/Tindr[sp] to avoid the authorities being able to find them easily, and are now terrified of being subject to whatever punishment is deemed appropriate in such countries.
Not to mention, some people have open relationships, and others will simply have been lying/role-playing.
It's their reason for existence, they cannot accept it if it goes against.
Agreed, but since the SNP has conceded that they can't call a legitimate referendum and that only HMG can do that, why would HMG permit a second referendum when the SNP has proven that it can't accept Scots' democratic decision?
The problem for Loyalists is that the decision was not clear and the actual argument was fundamentally lost (perhaps forever) by the Loyalists. They could not find any reason to remain in the UK outside of (quite improbably) threats which still had an element of truthiness, enough to add on to the core Ideologically bigoted Loyalist support and scape a No vote.
But this complete loss of the argument by the Loyalists has left them struggling and relying on idiotic nonsense like you do here. Denying a democratic choice at a future time decided by the electorate of Scotland. It is the dumbest outlook imaginable and just highlights the paucity of the argument for maintaining the Union.
Sunday Times: foreign aid donated by Britain to the following countries
India £430m China £21.6m Brazil £15m South Africa £63m Turkey £5.5m
Turkey's been doing an admirable job (with some caveats) in dealing with the 1.6 million refugees from Syria that are on, and within, its borders. Whether you like or loathe Erdogan, his AKP government have dealt with this massive strain far better than any other neighbouring country, and have spent over $4.5 billion on them before the end of least year. If the £5.5 million can help them in that, good.
Yup, wouldn't argue with that or the idea of giving more aid to Turkey. However, lets just look at the list of other recipients again.
China, why in Gods name have we been giving aid to China? China has more cash than it knows what to do with, it is even buying up chunks of the UK industry and assets. Who signed off on that one? India ditto. FFS, these are the so called BRICS countries set to overtake us in wealth, why have the UK taxpayer been burdened with more debt to give away to countries that do not in any normal sense of the word need it?
Someone ought to check but I believe EU law means that industries cannot be taken into public ownership without paying full compensation (as assessed by the EU). Labour ought to check this before making a pledge inconsistent with continuing membership of the EU.
Brown was far less supportive of academies and pfi and choice in public services than Blair was. Even accounting for the financial crisis, Brown did not refuse to bail out or nationalise any Bank which asked (even George W Bush let Lehmans go bust) and over the course of his premiership spending rose from just under 40% to nearer 50%, that was not all accounted for by the Crash.
Regardless of politicing or not the fact remains Brown raised the top tax rate to 50%, something Blair explicitly has said he would not have done and something Osborne reversed as soon as he could in 2012 by cutting it to 45%. The question was whether Brown preserved the Thatcherite legacy, on spending and the top rate of tax the answer is unequivocally not
He increased it a month before the election! That's hardly the sign of someone committed to the move, especially after thirteen years in power, and only perverse, deluded fools would think otherwise.
"Brown was far less supportive of academies and pfi and choice in public services than Blair was."
Yet he continued the policies after he became PM. Funny that.
He had already increased it from 40% to 45% in 2009 before he increased it to 50%, so it was a consistent trend from the Brown-Darling government to increase the top tax rate from the 40% Lawson cut it to under Thatcher and which Major and Blair had kept.
There was no pushing of academies under Brown or pfi under Brown, it took the Tory led government to push through expansion of academies and free schools.
. He announced it would be increased to 45p in 2011, and at a later budget increased the amount to 50p, and brought the measure forward to April 2010.
I'm pretty sure no-one paid the 45p rate ...
Yes, so by April 2010 there had been a 10% increase in the top rate paid by the highest earners compared to the 40% top tax rate Thatcher had left in 1990, so I repeat Brown unequivocally did not preserve the Thatcherite legacy
Yes, a 10% increase for a month. Out of thirteen years. Not out of a belief in it, but as a trap for the incoming government.
So we have privatisations, PFI, academies, et al. He was preserving the Thatcherite legacy.
About the only way he did not do so was in his firm belief in unsound money.
With the increase in the top tax rate announced 2 years previously. He also did not privatise any further industries and it was left to the Coalition to introduce free schools
Brown was far less supportive of academies and pfi and choice in public services than Blair was. Even accounting for the financial crisis, Brown did not refuse to bail out or nationalise any Bank which asked (even George W Bush let Lehmans go bust) and over the course of his premiership spending rose from just under 40% to nearer 50%, that was not all accounted for by the Crash.
Regardless of politicing or not the fact remains Brown raised the top tax rate to 50%, something Blair explicitly has said he would not have done and something Osborne reversed as soon as he could in 2012 by cutting it to 45%. The question was whether Brown preserved the Thatcherite legacy, on spending and the top rate of tax the answer is unequivocally not
He increased it a month before the election! That's hardly the sign of someone committed to the move, especially after thirteen years in power, and only perverse, deluded fools would think otherwise.
"Brown was far less supportive of academies and pfi and choice in public services than Blair was."
Yet he continued the policies after he became PM. Funny that.
He had already increased it from 40% to 45% in 2009 before he increased it to 50%, so it was a consistent trend from the Brown-Darling government to increase the top tax rate from the 40% Lawson cut it to under Thatcher and which Major and Blair had kept.
There was no pushing of academies under Brown or pfi under Brown, it took the Tory led government to push through expansion of academies and free schools.
Lordy, you're making it sound as though Brown was Blair's poodle, doing only what his master said and having no responsibility for his own actions when chancellor. As the Brownite plotting shows, this was far from the truth.
And as far as I am aware, he did not increase it to 45p in 2009. He announced it would be increased to 45p in 2011, and at a later budget increased the amount to 50p, and brought the measure forward to April 2010.
I'm pretty sure no-one paid the 45p rate ...
Yes, so by April 2010 there had been a 10% increase in the top rate paid by the highest earners compared to the 40% top tax rate Thatcher had left in 1990, so I repeat Brown unequivocally did not preserve the Thatcherite legacy
You're embarrassing yourself now.
There is no definition of Thatcherite at all which encompasses a 10% rise in the top tax rate
Brown was far less supportive of academies and pfi and choice in public services than Blair was. Even accounting for the financial crisis, Brown did not refuse to bail out or nationalise any Bank which asked (even George W Bush let Lehmans go bust) and over the course of his premiership spending rose from just under 40% to nearer 50%, that was not all accounted for by the Crash.
Regardless of politicing or not the fact remains Brown raised the top tax rate to 50%, something Blair explicitly has said he would not have done and something Osborne reversed as soon as he could in 2012 by cutting it to 45%. The question was whether Brown preserved the Thatcherite legacy, on spending and the top rate of tax the answer is unequivocally not
He increased it a month before the election! That's hardly the sign of someone committed to the move, especially after thirteen years in power, and only perverse, deluded fools would think otherwise.
"Brown was far less supportive of academies and pfi and choice in public services than Blair was."
Yet he continued the policies after he became PM. Funny that.
He had already increased it from 40% to 45% in 2009 before he increased it to 50%, so it was a consistent trend from the Brown-Darling government to increase the top tax rate from the 40% Lawson cut it to under Thatcher and which Major and Blair had kept.
There was no pushing of academies under Brown or pfi under Brown, it took the Tory led government to push through expansion of academies and free schools.
Lordy, you're making it sound as though Brown was Blair's poodle, doing only what his master said and having no responsibility for his own actions when chancellor. As the Brownite plotting shows, this was far from the truth.
And as far as I am aware, he did not increase it to 45p in 2009. He announced it would be increased to 45p in 2011, and at a later budget increased the amount to 50p, and brought the measure forward to April 2010.
I'm pretty sure no-one paid the 45p rate ...
Yes, so by April 2010 there had been a 10% increase in the top rate paid by the highest earners compared to the 40% top tax rate Thatcher had left in 1990, so I repeat Brown unequivocally did not preserve the Thatcherite legacy
You're embarrassing yourself now.
There is no definition of Thatcherite at all which encompasses a 10% rise in the top tax rate
You're resting a great deal of your argument on a 10% tax rise done, for political, not fiscal, reasons, in the last month of a dying government.
Brown was far less supportive of academies and pfi and choice in public services than Blair was. Even accounting for the financial crisis, Brown did not refuse to bail out or nationalise any Bank which asked (even George W Bush let Lehmans go bust) and over the course of his premiership spending rose from just under 40% to nearer 50%, that was not all accounted for by the Crash.
Regardless of politicing or not the fact remains Brown raised the top tax rate to 50%, something Blair explicitly has said he would not have done and something Osborne reversed as soon as he could in 2012 by cutting it to 45%. The question was whether Brown preserved the Thatcherite legacy, on spending and the top rate of tax the answer is unequivocally not
He increased it a month before the election! That's hardly the sign of someone committed to the move, especially after thirteen years in power, and only perverse, deluded fools would think otherwise.
"Brown was far less supportive of academies and pfi and choice in public services than Blair was."
Yet he continued the policies after he became PM. Funny that.
He had already increased it from 40% to 45% in 2009 before he increased it to 50%, so it was a consistent trend from the Brown-Darling government to increase the top tax rate from the 40% Lawson cut it to under Thatcher and which Major and Blair had kept.
There was no pushing of academies under Brown or pfi under Brown, it took the Tory led government to push through expansion of academies and free schools.
. He announced it would be increased to 45p in 2011, and at a later budget increased the amount to 50p, and brought the measure forward to April 2010.
I'm pretty sure no-one paid the 45p rate ...
Yes, so by April 2010 there had been a 10% increase in the top rate paid by the highest earners compared to the 40% top tax rate Thatcher had left in 1990, so I repeat Brown unequivocally did not preserve the Thatcherite legacy
Yes, a 10% increase for a month. Out of thirteen years. Not out of a belief in it, but as a trap for the incoming government.
So we have privatisations, PFI, academies, et al. He was preserving the Thatcherite legacy.
About the only way he did not do so was in his firm belief in unsound money.
With the increase in the top tax rate announced 2 years previously. He also did not privatise any further industries and it was left to the Coalition to introduce free schools
Announced, not implemented.
The process of privatisation of an NHS hospital started under him. That's a fairly big one for you.
Brown was far less supportive of academies and pfi and choice in public services than Blair was. Even accounting for the financial crisis, Brown did not refuse to bail out or nationalise any Bank which asked (even George W Bush let Lehmans go bust) and over the course of his premiership spending rose from just under 40% to nearer 50%, that was not all accounted for by the Crash.
Regardless of politicing or not the fact remains Brown raised the top tax rate to 50%, something Blair explicitly has said he would not have done and something Osborne reversed as soon as he could in 2012 by cutting it to 45%. The question was whether Brown preserved the Thatcherite legacy, on spending and the top rate of tax the answer is unequivocally not
He increased it a month before the election! That's hardly the sign of someone committed to the move, especially after thirteen years in power, and only perverse, deluded fools would think otherwise.
"Brown was far less supportive of academies and pfi and choice in public services than Blair was."
Yet he continued the policies after he became PM. Funny that.
He had already increased it from 40% to 45% in 2009 before he increased it to 50%, so it was a consistent trend from the Brown-Darling government to increase the top tax rate from the 40% Lawson cut it to under Thatcher and which Major and Blair had kept.
There was no pushing of academies under Brown or pfi under Brown, it took the Tory led government to push through expansion of academies and free schools.
And as far as I am aware, he did not increase it to 45p in 2009. He announced it would be increased to 45p in 2011, and at a later budget increased the amount to 50p, and brought the measure forward to April 2010.
I'm pretty sure no-one paid the 45p rate ...
Yes, so by April 2010 there had been a 10% increase in the top rate paid by the highest earners compared to the 40% top tax rate Thatcher had left in 1990, so I repeat Brown unequivocally did not preserve the Thatcherite legacy
You're embarrassing yourself now.
There is no definition of Thatcherite at all which encompasses a 10% rise in the top tax rate
You're resting a great deal of your argument on a 10% tax rise done, for political, not fiscal, reasons, in the last month of a dying government.
It's a ridiculous argument.
It was also accompanied by an almost 10% rise in the level of spending as a percentage of GDP over the course of Brown's premiership, again under no definition of the word is that a Thatcherite policy
Brown was far less supportive of academies and pfi and choice in public services than Blair was. Even accounting for the financial crisis, Brown did not refuse to bail out or nationalise any Bank which asked (even George W Bush let Lehmans go bust) and over the course of his premiership spending rose from just under 40% to nearer 50%, that was not all accounted for by the Crash.
Regardless of politicing or not the fact remains Brown raised the top tax rate to 50%, something Blair explicitly has said he would not have done and something Osborne reversed as soon as he could in 2012 by cutting it to 45%. The question was whether Brown preserved the Thatcherite legacy, on spending and the top rate of tax the answer is unequivocally not
He increased it a month before the election! That's hardly the sign of someone committed to the move, especially after thirteen years in power, and only perverse, deluded fools would think otherwise.
"Brown was far less supportive of academies and pfi and choice in public services than Blair was."
Yet he continued the policies after he became PM. Funny that.
He had already increased it from 40% to 45% in 2009 before he increased it to 50%, so it was a consistent trend from the Brown-Darling government to increase the top tax rate from the 40% Lawson cut it to under Thatcher and which Major and Blair had kept.
There was no pushing of academies under Brown or pfi under Brown, it took the Tory led government to push through expansion of academies and free schools.
. He announced it would be increased to 45p in 2011, and at a later budget increased the amount to 50p, and brought the measure forward to April 2010.
I'm pretty sure no-one paid the 45p rate ...
Yes, so by April 2010 there had been a 10% increase in the top rate paid by the highest earners compared to the 40% top tax rate Thatcher had left in 1990, so I repeat Brown unequivocally did not preserve the Thatcherite legacy
Yes, a 10% increase for a month.
With the increase in the top tax rate announced 2 years previously. He also did not privatise any further industries and it was left to the Coalition to introduce free schools
The process of privatisation of an NHS hospital started under him. That's a fairly big one for you.
Implemented before he left office. Allowing one hospital to be run by a private company is in no way privatisation, especially as the money still comes from government. Brown also nationalised the East Coast railway line in 2009
You're resting a great deal of your argument on a 10% tax rise done, for political, not fiscal, reasons, in the last month of a dying government.
It's a ridiculous argument.
It was also accompanied by an almost 10% rise in the level of spending as a percentage of GDP over the course of Brown's premiership, again under no definition of the word is that a Thatcherite policy
You're really desperate, aren't you? So go on: what is your definition of 'Thatcherite' ?
The process of privatisation of an NHS hospital started under him. That's a fairly big one for you.
Implemented before he left office. Allowing one hospital to be run by a private company is in no way privatisation, especially as the money still comes from government. Brown also nationalised the East Coast railway line in 2009
BTW, if you snip someone's comments, it's good manners to add a (snip) so you don't misrepresent another's views, as you have (hopefully inadvertently) above.
The tax rise was done a month before he left office. Which was thirteen years after he became chancellor, and nearly three years after he became PM. I'm sure if raising the tax was due to his true beliefs, and not political shenanigans, he would have done it in 1997 or 2007.
But he did not. Because he knew it was the wrong thing to do.
And your point about the hospital is ludicrous given what Labour and lefties themselves have been saying about it. You must be the only one who actually believes that ...
You're resting a great deal of your argument on a 10% tax rise done, for political, not fiscal, reasons, in the last month of a dying government.
It's a ridiculous argument.
It was also accompanied by an almost 10% rise in the level of spending as a percentage of GDP over the course of Brown's premiership, again under no definition of the word is that a Thatcherite policy
You're really desperate, aren't you? So go on: what is your definition of 'Thatcherite' ?
And eating babies is not an acceptable answer.
Mrs Thatcher cut the top tax rate from over 90% when she took office to 40% when she left, spending as a percentage of gdp from well over 40% when she took office to around 35% when she left and privatised multiple industries, from gas, to telecoms to airways. Brown increased the top tax rate over the course of his administration, increased spending as a percentage of gdp over the course of his administration and privatised no major industries while nationalising the East Coast railway line
The process of privatisation of an NHS hospital started under him. That's a fairly big one for you.
Implemented before he left office. Allowing one hospital to be run by a private company is in no way privatisation, especially as the money still comes from government. Brown also nationalised the East Coast railway line in 2009
BTW, if you snip someone's comments, it's good manners to add a (snip) so you don't misrepresent another's views, as you have (hopefully inadvertently) above.
The tax rise was done a month before he left office. Which was thirteen years after he became chancellor, and nearly three years after he became PM. I'm sure if raising the tax was due to his true beliefs, and not political shenanigans, he would have done it in 1997 or 2007.
But he did not. Because he knew it was the wrong thing to do.
And your point about the hospital is ludicrous given what Labour and lefties themselves have been saying about it. You must be the only one who actually believes that ...
Due to the length of this discussion inevitably previous comments have to be cut to allow space to post. You have to compare what someone was left with to what they left themselves, Brown left a higher top tax rate and higher spending as PM to what he was left by Major and Blair, that was in no way a Thatcherite legacy.
I am not a leftie, but the definition of a privatised industry is one run by a private company and funded by private consumers and finance, not the state
The process of privatisation of an NHS hospital started under him. That's a fairly big one for you.
Implemented before he left office. Allowing one hospital to be run by a private company is in no way privatisation, especially as the money still comes from government. Brown also nationalised the East Coast railway line in 2009
BTW, if you snip someone's comments, it's good manners to add a (snip) so you don't misrepresent another's views, as you have (hopefully inadvertently) above.
The tax rise was done a month before he left office. Which was thirteen years after he became chancellor, and nearly three years after he became PM. I'm sure if raising the tax was due to his true beliefs, and not political shenanigans, he would have done it in 1997 or 2007.
But he did not. Because he knew it was the wrong thing to do.
And your point about the hospital is ludicrous given what Labour and lefties themselves have been saying about it. You must be the only one who actually believes that ...
Due to the length of this discussion inevitably previous comments have to be cut to allow space to post. You have to compare what someone was left with to what they left themselves, Brown left a higher top tax rate and higher spending as PM to what he was left by Major and Blair, that was in no way a Thatcherite legacy.
I am not a leftie, but the definition of a privatised industry is one run by a private company and funded by private consumers and finance, not the state
If you do snip, try to make sure what's left doesn't misrepresent the conversation ...
The idea that something done in the dying month of an administration, when the government knew it was going to be kicked out, is in any way symbolic of their mindset and ideology is faintly ridiculous. In fact, it's pathetic.
Comments
As an example, from the deep, dark recesses of my mind: the local manager on one line was asked by a local group to allow a 'friends of our station' group to be formed. The volunteers picked litter, put up flower baskets, and did some other minor changes. ISTR BR fixed the lighting as well. Without any major improvement to services, passenger numbers rocketed.
The manager was replaced after a couple of years, and the new man did not like the group for whatever reason. He barred them from working on the station, and after a time passenger numbers slumped.
When people and managers fought - as famously occurred with the Settle to Carlisle line - services could be improved. It just wasn't generally in BR's mindset to fight until the mid 1980s.
Then there was the internal fighting within BR, some of which was a throwback to the pre-nationalisation Big Four.
That is why the final peace accords were labelled as Sunningdale for slow learners. (The Sunningdale agreement happened in 1973.)
Corbyn did nothing to help that process along. If he or anyone else wanted to help they'd have done more addressing the issues in the 1960's and earlier before violence erupted, they'd have done more supporting - rather than undermining - the SDLP. They'd have done more by telling the IRA to stop the violence, to abjure violence so that some semblance of a normal political process could restart. Instead of which they gave legitimacy to violence and thus helped ensure that it lasted longer than it should have done.
Those who appease terror, those who excuse it, those who give it a platform, those who give it or lend it legitimacy, those who give it a voice, those who do not challenge it are not being "brave" or showing "understanding". They are giving it the space to spread and that means the violence will last longer and the grievances which may have once underpinned it will remain unremedied for far longer than would otherwise have been the case.
The brave are those who have to live under the violence, who understand only too well, who see their claims for justice highjacked as a pretext by others, and have to endure not only the original injustice but the further injustices perpetrated by those claiming to act on their behalf.
A not inconsiderable mercy.
a) be more efficient than a franchised service (including the latter's profits), and
b) that a non-profit service would increase services in the way that the current set-up has.
History indicates quite the opposite.
And, yet again, I must bang the drum for another potential system: concessions rather than franchises.
Let me repeat my own point again.
Corbyn argued for and side by side with the IRA. They did not argue face to face against the IRA.
Most of the pfi projects were again carried out under Blair, not Brown, there were no significant privatisations under Brown, it took a Tory led government to privatise Royal Mail, the first significant privatisation since Major privatised the railways
Given it was a key argument in the campaign at £100+.
Miracles do happen
Besides, Brown as PM did not get very long to do things, as the financial crisis hit him after a year or two. You're disingenuously including spending post-crash.
And you still seem to think that Brown's last-minute increase in the top-rate of tax, after thirteen years, was a sign of some left-wing tendency, instead of a nasty trap he set for the Conservatives.
In which case, you are truly clueless.
I think you are still evading the issue we have with Corbyn.
1. Talking to someone to find out what they have to say & why they are doing what they are doing is one thing. There may be circumstances where it is worthwhile governments doing this.
2. Then there is actively taking steps to support them e.g. making donations, lobbying to let people into the country or proposing a course of action which helps them. Example A: Stop The War opposing action against IS to protect the Yazidis.
3. It is possible to be polite without describing someone as a "friend" or "honourable". The normal way to describe people one meets in the circumstances of 1. is to call them "parties". Calling someone "honourable" is to set out some level of approval.
4. It is also important to consider whether what you are doing is giving people legitimacy in how you treat them. Are you - if you sit and talk with them in a superficially friendly way - giving then legitimacy in a way that will encourage them and encourage others to follow an extremist path? It is a question of the signals you send out, of responsibility. That is particularly important at a time when there is clear evidence of extremist grooming of young minds.
5. Do you - if you do not agree with their views - challenge them, openly, about their views, about why you think they are wrong?
You say that 1. is OK as if that is the extent of the issue.
But it isn't. Corbyn has done 2 - 4 and I've seen no evidence of him ever challenging these people. He says that he has always been against anti-Semitism and there should never be anti-Semitic banners at demonstrations. But 2 minutes on Google can show you photos of him at demos in front of such banners. So how much credence to place on what he says now when there is scrutiny of his actions?
He's not like a Gordon Wilson who went to see the IRA to ask them why they did things like the Eniskillen bomb which killed his daughter.
He behaves like someone who either supports these people because of their views or supports them because they are his enemy's enemy (and is indifferent to their views) or does not care that he is giving them legitimacy. He is behaving irresponsibly and it is his judgment in not just interacting with these people but in how he does it, what he says and does not say, the prolonged nature of the interaction and the common thread to it all - any group which is anti-Western seems to have his unthinking support, no matter how odious, illiberal, unprogressive it is - which is my issue with him.
I'm sorry to repeat this because clearly you disagree. But I will not let you mischaracterise why people like my and SO (and I hope others) profoundly feel that he is a danger to the UK and to the Labour party, which you support, and even to the idea of a worthwhile decent left of centre political party, which I would like to have the option of supporting.
"Crowding commuters like cattle onto under-stocked services is not a sign of a well-run franchise and shouldn't be viewed as such."
Fair enough. I was travelling into Town under the old regime and commuters were treated like cattle then too. So, what would you suggest is the solution to the problem of too many people wanting to travel at the same time to the same destination?
You said nothing about them having to arrive intact. In fact, it would solve the problem after a couple of days ...
A PBer will know the % who do regularly.
Regardless of politicing or not the fact remains Brown raised the top tax rate to 50%, something Blair explicitly has said he would not have done and something Osborne reversed as soon as he could in 2012 by cutting it to 45%. The question was whether Brown preserved the Thatcherite legacy, on spending and the top rate of tax the answer is unequivocally not
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/mro/news-release/travel-to-work/census-reveals-details-of-how-we-travel-to-work-in-england-and-wales.html
As an aside, increased rail traffic also improves the lives of people who use roads: if that traffic was not on the railways, it would be further clogging up the road network, or not occurring and harming the economy.
"Brown was far less supportive of academies and pfi ... "
I stopped reading there. The idea that Brown was less supportive of PFI than Blair maybe true, but only in the same way that my cat likes prawns less than I do. Brown was a massive user of PFI, he loved the idea and the number of such deals grew hugely during his time as Chancellor.
Brown's use of PFI and his encouragement of local authorities to use such schemes has landed us with massive bills for decades to come. PFI is a wonderful scheme for transferring money from relatively poor taxpayers to the very wealthy, but it kept part of his huge expansion of public spending off the books.
I don't dispute that people on the left are sometimes naive in trying to establish a common basis for discussion with people who are essentially nuts, or in believing that people who are opposed to western interests always need a hearing. We all decide where to draw the line - in my case it was joining Labour Friends of Palestine as well as Labour Friends of Israel, even though that potentially meant having friendly discussions with Hamas supporters who I fundamentally disagreed with. I felt that Palestine wasn't getting enough of a hearing and it would be helpful to do something about it. Personally I wouldn't have initiated a public meeting with Hamas but I might have attended one, and I'm not inclined to condemn anyone for calling it. The depiction of it as closet anti-semitism is a misunderstanding of what was happening there.
I'll have to leave it there for now as I've got a long translation to finish today. Thanks for the civil discussion!
I think the point possibly might have been that left to themselves railways would have gone out of existence some time ago.
"Brown was far less supportive of academies and pfi and choice in public services than Blair was."
Yet he continued the policies after he became PM. Funny that.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2562627/Charles-Arabia-Prince-stars-Saudi-dance-swords.html
To imagine that diplomacy can work another way is naive or disingenuous.
"I’ve also met people in Likud and very many right-wing parties in Israel because at some point there has to be talks."
https://www.facebook.com/redlabourhq/posts/902880259791009
https://twitter.com/PlatoSays/status/619201997003190272
There was no significant pushing of academies under Brown or pfi under Brown, it took the Tory led government to push through expansion of academies and free schools.
For what it's worth, I think Corbyn has had some more-than-distinctly-dubious choices of "friend" and that it is likely to come back to bite Labour later. Impressions matter as well as facts. I don't think an NP-style exculpation is going to be found satisfactory by a sizeable chunk of the electorate. How big a downside that is a part of the trade-off with the people he manages to re-engage versus the number he puts off.
Would it go back from WW1 or forward? My guess would be Thatcher, but really could they be so crass? Does Ben Elton want to reprise all his old mistakes?
PS
Just seen Bernie E on TV looking for all the world like Lofty Sugden from It Aint Half Hot Mum. (Don Estell)
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/388bf2ca-475a-11e5-af2f-4d6e0e5eda22.html#axzz3jdbRHVa4
And as far as I am aware, he did not increase it to 45p in 2009. He announced it would be increased to 45p in 2011, and at a later budget increased the amount to 50p, and brought the measure forward to April 2010.
I'm pretty sure no-one paid the 45p rate ...
I think it is entirely fair to say that his approach is one-sided. I am sure the logical response is that the present situation is one-sided and he merely intends to redress the balance, but the take-home message the electorate is getting about "what side" Corbyn is on (and yes, the world is not a binary place torn between two sides on every issue, but in the limited space the media has to summarise what is going on, and the partial information vacuum that constitutes the court of public opinion, it comes pretty close) is that he is on "their" side.
Essentially, the likes of Corbyn are not half as keen to publicise their meetings with "bad guys who are regarded as bad guys by his own fellow-travellers" as they are meetings with "bad guys who are regarded as heroic, if not actively good, by their fellow-travellers, regardless of disagreements political violence or human rights." It doesn't give an impression of even-handedness even if more is going on behind the scenes than meets the eye.
A man was in the toilet and at first would not come out. Somewhat squeaky bum time, but when he did he was able to produce paperwork or something to show they were all dummies. Not unreasonably he asked where his gear was. As his jaw dropped I almost, almost, felt sorry for him.
So we have privatisations, PFI, academies, et al. He was preserving the Thatcherite legacy.
About the only way he did not do so was in his firm belief in unsound money.
PFI can work very well for a simple fixed asset with a predictable pattern/amount of use, such as bridge or a road. In those circumstances both sides can understand what the costs and risks are. PFI deals are an appalling idea for complex assets where the ongoing use and needs are totally unpredictable (e.g. schools, hospitals and police stations). The treasury told Brown this. He went ahead with such deals despite the best advice and so we now get events such as hospitals paying a fortune for minor changes to their infrastructure (e.g. wiring in a new plug) and soon public buildings that are no longer required but cannot be closed as we have contracted to pay for their use.
I know for an absolute fact that just a couple of years ago at least one very wealthy family trust was buying up PFI contracts (yes, there is even a secondary market in them) as they provided a solid income stream to balance their investment portfolio.
Truly, the damage that Brown did to the prosperity of the ordinary people of the UK in his insane desire to get the top job has yet to be calculated.
Aberdeen is clearly the city where folks are much more aware of the oil industry, however even here production levels matter more than price, Scottish oil production is at a 15 year high and due to tax incentives, belatedly introduced in the budget, oil companies are continuing to invest. The Coalition's 3 month delay in introducing the tax incentives in a naïve attempt to damage the SNP, cost thousands of jobs.
From the SNP perspective oil taxes over the last 35 years constitutes a £300 billion transfer of wealth to London and the South East with Scotland receiving little direct benefit from these revenues. Having lived and worked in London for most of the last 30 years I'm happy to admit that I benefited particularly in the 1980s and 1990s as these revenues were used to re-gentrify London. In their recent Northern Powerhouse announcements both Cameron and Osbo have admitted that for to long investment has been focused on London and the South East.
In terms of what the SNP person on the street believes. I think they view Scotland as having a diverse economy and probably do buy the SNP line that all revenues are a bonus. Scott and the likes of Kevin Hauge can huff and puff all they like about the oil price, however they're shouting in an echo chamber.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curragh_incident
Arthur Bonar Law never quite crossed the line, but he got very close to encouraging armed insurrection as he felt that loyalty to the Crown over-rode loyalty to the Crown-in-Parliament
And Edward Carson, as Solicitor General, raised, trained and armed a volunteer force. They even had their own tanks and air force... he described it in a private letter as 'taking the high road to treason and despair'.
Don't tip them off to @TSE's masterplan
Re my point 1, of course backbenchers might be used as outriders for talks. That sort of thing can make sense. Provides deniability etc. But there is absolutely no evidence that that is what Corbyn was doing. So his claim that somehow by talking to the IRA he was facilitating what later happened is so much bunkum.
As for his claim that he has spoken to right wing Israelis, I'd like to see the evidence. I've found none. All I've found is him campaigning to stop us hearing from the Israeli Foreign Minister. Has he invited some of the more revolting groups within Israel to speak at Parliament? Has he called them "friends" and "honourable"? He has not been even-handed. He is not someone like, say, Jimmy Carter who has actively sought to talk to a wide range of people in order to facilitate peace talks, even if he could be criticised for naivety.
But, in any case, I don't think that failing to challenge anti-Semites (and his excuses for this are, frankly, piss poor - "He didn't say anything anti-Semitic in my presence" is an insult to our intelligence) is not excused by him failing to challenge those who wish to slaughter all Palestinians, for instance.
Having "principles" is not something to be admired if the principles you have are revolting.
He has made a virtue of saying that all his life he has stood up for the "oppressed". When it is pointed out that he is a bit selective about who he defines as "oppressed" or that some of those "oppressed" people are themselves pretty oppressive (Hamas throw Fatah people off buildings, for instance) then he claims that he did not know or they didn't do bad things while he was there or comes out with meaningless guff which is instantly contradicted by his own actions.
He's not even consistent about standing up for his own "principles". He's embarrassed when the contradictions and difficulties are pointed out and questions raised and retreats to bluff, spin and anger.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3207363/Prime-Minister-Corbyn-1-000-days-destroyed-Britain-brilliant-imagining-Corbyn-premiership-reveals-Tories-gloat-Labour-s-woe-careful-wish-for.html
India £269m
China £21.6m
Brazil £15m
South Africa £63m
Turkey £5.5m
Not a classic race in Spa, though there were a few moments of interest.
Will begin writing the post-race ramble shortly.
What he said was that is Osborne sold any more assets on an undervalued basis, he reserved the right either to cancel the sale without compensation (i.e. presumably just to return the purchase price) or to adjust the compensation payable to reflect the extent of the undervaluation
Basically, whatever else his strengths, I don't think anyone can trust Corbyn on economics.
More work for lawyers. And bankers. Yay!!
And if he has to pay to renationalise, where is the money going to come from? You and me. Or printing it. Either way, all of us will be stuffed.
Furthermore even if public assets were sold at supposed knock down prices (eg. Royal Mail) - then the shares will likely have passed through several hands since then. The holders of the shares at time of repurchase will likely not be those who benefitted from the original "undervaluation".
One of them compared the Ashley Madison thing, to Cilla Black voting Tory (yes, really) trying to imply that Cilla Black voting Tory was far worse morally than signing up to a cheating website.
New Thread
Not to mention, some people have open relationships, and others will simply have been lying/role-playing.
But this complete loss of the argument by the Loyalists has left them struggling and relying on idiotic nonsense like you do here. Denying a democratic choice at a future time decided by the electorate of Scotland. It is the dumbest outlook imaginable and just highlights the paucity of the argument for maintaining the Union.
China, why in Gods name have we been giving aid to China? China has more cash than it knows what to do with, it is even buying up chunks of the UK industry and assets. Who signed off on that one? India ditto. FFS, these are the so called BRICS countries set to overtake us in wealth, why have the UK taxpayer been burdened with more debt to give away to countries that do not in any normal sense of the word need it?
Corbyn might change the discourse outside this arena.
Even this will frighten some.
It's a ridiculous argument.
The process of privatisation of an NHS hospital started under him. That's a fairly big one for you.
And eating babies is not an acceptable answer.
The tax rise was done a month before he left office. Which was thirteen years after he became chancellor, and nearly three years after he became PM. I'm sure if raising the tax was due to his true beliefs, and not political shenanigans, he would have done it in 1997 or 2007.
But he did not. Because he knew it was the wrong thing to do.
And your point about the hospital is ludicrous given what Labour and lefties themselves have been saying about it. You must be the only one who actually believes that ...
I am not a leftie, but the definition of a privatised industry is one run by a private company and funded by private consumers and finance, not the state
The idea that something done in the dying month of an administration, when the government knew it was going to be kicked out, is in any way symbolic of their mindset and ideology is faintly ridiculous. In fact, it's pathetic.