Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » And this afternoon Mr. Corbyn’s big speech..

SystemSystem Posts: 12,682
edited September 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » And this afternoon Mr. Corbyn’s big speech..

Another beautiful pic of Corbyn from Charlie Bibby, copyright FT pic.twitter.com/zAki7VgYd1

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,764
    edited September 2015
    Yes.

    Success equals performance minus anticipation.

    The anticipation for Mr Corbyn is very poor.

    So long as he doesn't propose making Gerry Adams Northern Ireland secretary and doesn't insult the Queen, it'll be a successful speech.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,764
    edited September 2015
    I'm officially forming The don't misunderestimate Jeremy Corbyn association.
  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    curse of the new thread...

    This is a good read from The Register:

    Dear do-gooders, you can't get rid of child labour just by banning it

    (re-post)
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,850
    He will please his current acolytes, he will attempt to appear 'normal' and then within hours there will be talk of new splits and disagreements.

    Fairly typical day out really
  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    I'll be listening on radio.
    Will he be reading an autocue?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,764
    @tnewtondunn: Early draft of Corbyn's speech out: it's rousing Marxist stuff. Calls Tories "the people who want you to take what you're given"...
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,764
    @tnewtondunn: ...big attack on press/TV: "The media don't get it. They've been keen to report disagreements as split, agreement as compromise."

    @tnewtondunn: ...Corbyn speech: "Some people have property and power, class and capital, status and clout which are denied to the many".

    @tnewtondunn: ...Corbyn speech: "Time and time again, the people who receive a great deal tell the many to be grateful to be given anything at all".
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,764
    DaemonBarber said:

    I'll be listening on radio.
    Will he be reading an autocue?

    I wonder if he's like Ron Burgundy?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,764
    @tnewtondunn: ...Corbyn speech: "Isn't it curious globalisation always means low wages for poor, but used to justify massive payments to top chief execs".
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited September 2015
    Tomorrow there's the Syria debate - some confusion [when isn't there] about whether MPs will get a free vote should Cameron propose action. Lots of room for *debate* amongst the ShCab... I remain mystified why Unite has a vote here - they proposed the motion. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/sep/29/labour-conference-jeremy-corbyns-speech-politics-live#img-1
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @tnewtondunn: ...Corbyn speech: "Isn't it curious globalisation always means low wages for poor, but used to justify massive payments to top chief execs".

    Actually a valid point.

    Doesn't excuse the rest of JC's bollox though.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited September 2015
    MarkHopkins said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @tnewtondunn: ...Corbyn speech: "Isn't it curious globalisation always means low wages for poor, but used to justify massive payments to top chief execs".

    Actually a valid point.

    Doesn't excuse the rest of JC's bollox though.
    I suspect globalisation will do more to reduce the inequalities of the third world than any - and I mean any - charitable/UN/World Bank IFC programme ever has.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    It is - some real-world reality.
    DaemonBarber said:

    curse of the new thread...

    This is a good read from The Register:

    Dear do-gooders, you can't get rid of child labour just by banning it

    (re-post)

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,764
    MarkHopkins said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @tnewtondunn: ...Corbyn speech: "Isn't it curious globalisation always means low wages for poor, but used to justify massive payments to top chief execs".

    Actually a valid point.

    Doesn't excuse the rest of JC's bollox though.
    Globalisation is awesome.

    I wish some politician had the balls to say those complaining about low wages and foreigners taking their jobs are in fact lazy work shy Brits.

    If a Pole who can barely speak English can take your job then you aren't the brightest bulb in the chandelier.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    I expect that Jeremy Corbyn will do fine on his own terms. He's an experienced speaker and expectations are, as TSE says, low. He should exceed them.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    edited September 2015
    MarkHopkins said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @tnewtondunn: ...Corbyn speech: "Isn't it curious globalisation always means low wages for poor, but used to justify massive payments to top chief execs".

    Actually a valid point.

    Doesn't excuse the rest of JC's bollox though.
    A valid point in equity discussions. But I just read one critique of Piketty's work which addresses this point pretty much head on from an economic perspective.

    The argument is that, since globalization started, with the migration of Western corporations' factories to low labour-cost countries, it has introduced a massive influx of labour into the (effectively Western) market. This has pushed down the price of labour relative to capital, resulting in greater returns on capital and hence the high executive/bankers' remuneration.

    The argument continues that now, given that the West has pretty much absorbed or will relatively soon absorb the under-utilized labour of India, China and the largest developing countries, that process will start going into reverse. Labour's value relative to capital will increase, returns on investment will decrease and inequality will reverse its trend.

    Not an economist, so not in a position to judge this thesis' premise and the evidence, but found it interesting nonetheless.
  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    edited September 2015
    MarkHopkins said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @tnewtondunn: ...Corbyn speech: "Isn't it curious globalisation always means low wages for poor, but used to justify massive payments to top chief execs".

    Actually a valid point.

    Doesn't excuse the rest of JC's bollox though.
    Except it isn't valid:

    http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/issues11/

    Increased globalization has been viewed with concern in many advanced economies. There is a common belief that globalization harms the interests of workers, especially unskilled workers, either directly through immigration or indirectly through trade and capital mobility. Particularly with respect to import competition, these beliefs appear to be at odds with the empirical evidence that globalization has only a modest effect on wages, employment, and income inequality in the advanced economies. (By contrast, changes in technology have led to a pervasive shift toward more-skilled workers to the detriment of less-skilled ones.) Moreover, the belief that globalization threatens wages and jobs is contradicted by the historical evidence that free trade and the mobility of labor and capital improve global welfare and tend to improve national welfare for all countries involved.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    Raging at the moon.

    Waving a 'Kinnock at electors fist' to the real world.

    Lefty idealogues will surely swoon over it.... Polly's next piece will be a treat.

    Do I spend 50 mins listening to platitudes in the background???
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,541
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @tnewtondunn: ...Corbyn speech: "Isn't it curious globalisation always means low wages for poor, but used to justify massive payments to top chief execs".

    Actually a valid point.

    Doesn't excuse the rest of JC's bollox though.
    Globalisation is awesome.

    I wish some politician had the balls to say those complaining about low wages and foreigners taking their jobs are in fact lazy work shy Brits.

    If a Pole who can barely speak English can take your job then you aren't the brightest bulb in the chandelier.
    Like all things, it's awesome if you benefit from it, and bad if you lose.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,764
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    Raging at the moon.

    Waving a 'Kinnock at electors fist' to the real world.

    Lefty idealogues will surely swoon over it.... Polly's next piece will be a treat.

    Do I spend 50 mins listening to platitudes in the background???

    Watch/listen to this instead.

    http://youtu.be/9EYUkV-SHFw
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,455
    DaemonBarber said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @tnewtondunn: ...Corbyn speech: "Isn't it curious globalisation always means low wages for poor, but used to justify massive payments to top chief execs".

    Actually a valid point.

    Doesn't excuse the rest of JC's bollox though.
    Except it isn't valid:

    http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/issues11/

    Increased globalization has been viewed with concern in many advanced economies. There is a common belief that globalization harms the interests of workers, especially unskilled workers, either directly through immigration or indirectly through trade and capital mobility. Particularly with respect to import competition, these beliefs appear to be at odds with the empirical evidence that globalization has only a modest effect on wages, employment, and income inequality in the advanced economies. (By contrast, changes in technology have led to a pervasive shift toward more-skilled workers to the detriment of less-skilled ones.) Moreover, the belief that globalization threatens wages and jobs is contradicted by the historical evidence that free trade and the mobility of labor and capital improve global welfare and tend to improve national welfare for all countries involved.
    IMF backs world trade shocker.

    Worthy of more detailed analysis.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    antifrank said:

    I expect that Jeremy Corbyn will do fine on his own terms. He's an experienced speaker and expectations are, as TSE says, low. He should exceed them.

    Quite, i thought his acceptance speech (despite what Dan Hodges said) was quite good. He can bumble, like he did at the TUC. But he gives a good clear message, knows when to pause, be reassuring, and get a good soundbite on the BBC and job done.

    I think labour could get a poll bounce.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @tnewtondunn: ...Corbyn speech: "Isn't it curious globalisation always means low wages for poor, but used to justify massive payments to top chief execs".

    Actually a valid point.

    Doesn't excuse the rest of JC's bollox though.
    Globalisation is awesome.

    I wish some politician had the balls to say those complaining about low wages and foreigners taking their jobs are in fact lazy work shy Brits.

    If a Pole who can barely speak English can take your job then you aren't the brightest bulb in the chandelier.
    It is however a fact that an over supply of labour compresses wages, the housing shortage means high rent/property prices. Its a ludicrous way to run an economy, Poles and light bulbs are irrelevant.

  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    The Corbyn draft reads like a tired re-tread of all the things Brown, Miliband, the Guardian, Polly Toynbee etc have been saying on the road to Labour's last two defeats.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 47,057
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @tnewtondunn: Early draft of Corbyn's speech out: it's rousing Marxist stuff. Calls Tories "the people who want you to take what you're given"...

    Whereas Corbyn's Labour are: "the people who want to take all you've got."
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    DaemonBarber said:

    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    Dair said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Beverley_C said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    OOoh

    @severincarrell: BREAKING: election court judges rule that @acarmichaelmp "self talking" about his ignorance of #nikkileaks memo does meet legal test 1/2

    So @acarmichaelmp complainants win first round victory on Representation of People's act case: now for further hearings 2/2

    Is there an English translation of this?
    There's evidence that Alastair Carmichael was a very naughty boy but we should have further hearings to find out, if he has been as naughty as his opponents say, we might have a by-election
    He may feel it is in his best interest to resign no rather than face the humiliation of trying to defend his lying in court (on national television).
    Well Carmichael had a better chance of standing down and fighting a by election on the grounds that he may have misled some of his voters. Honourable and probably his best chance of being re-elected.
    As far as I understand it, the lie in question was that he denied being the leaker. I may be wrong, but doesn't he still stand by the claim that at the time of the leak he thought the contents of the memo to be true?
    He later accepted that the memo wan't accurate, and that he was the source of the leak.

    The witch hunt surrounding this and the faux outrage from the SNP and travelling supporters has been quite an eye-opener.

    I agree that he could stand down and seek re-election, but expect howls of outrage from SNP if he does. Perhaps he should if only to lay open the rotten core of our "government".


    He lied about two things which he now accepts were lies at the time.

    That he had no knowledge of the memo before it was published.
    That he was not involved in leaking the memo.

    From the court's statement today and the requests they're making for further information, his only likely hope is that the court rules that the lies did not effect the return of a candidate or that they did not effect his personal character.

    His majority is too small for the first one to have much chance. So basically he will be arguing that lying to win an election is not a reflection on his personal character. Perhaps there is some grounds there if he can establish that most people think "all politicians are liars" to start with?
  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    DaemonBarber said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @tnewtondunn: ...Corbyn speech: "Isn't it curious globalisation always means low wages for poor, but used to justify massive payments to top chief execs".

    Actually a valid point.

    Doesn't excuse the rest of JC's bollox though.
    Except it isn't valid:

    http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/issues11/

    Increased globalization has been viewed with concern in many advanced economies. There is a common belief that globalization harms the interests of workers, especially unskilled workers, either directly through immigration or indirectly through trade and capital mobility. Particularly with respect to import competition, these beliefs appear to be at odds with the empirical evidence that globalization has only a modest effect on wages, employment, and income inequality in the advanced economies. (By contrast, changes in technology have led to a pervasive shift toward more-skilled workers to the detriment of less-skilled ones.) Moreover, the belief that globalization threatens wages and jobs is contradicted by the historical evidence that free trade and the mobility of labor and capital improve global welfare and tend to improve national welfare for all countries involved.
    IMF backs world trade shocker.

    Worthy of more detailed analysis.

    Author Information
    Matthew J. Slaughter is an assistant professor at Dartmouth College, a faculty research fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research, and a visiting fellow at the Institute for International Economics. He graduated from the University of Notre Dame and received a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He wrote this paper while a visiting scholar at the IMF.


    Phillip Swagel is an economist in the World Economic Studies Division of the International Monetary Fund. He graduated from Princeton University and received a Ph.D. from Harvard University. Before joining the IMF, he was an economist at the Federal Reserve Board and a visiting assistant professor at Northwestern University.

    How about you provide some analysis rather than ad hominem tripe?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,764
    blackburn63 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @tnewtondunn: ...Corbyn speech: "Isn't it curious globalisation always means low wages for poor, but used to justify massive payments to top chief execs".

    Actually a valid point.

    Doesn't excuse the rest of JC's bollox though.
    Globalisation is awesome.

    I wish some politician had the balls to say those complaining about low wages and foreigners taking their jobs are in fact lazy work shy Brits.

    If a Pole who can barely speak English can take your job then you aren't the brightest bulb in the chandelier.
    It is however a fact that an over supply of labour compresses wages, the housing shortage means high rent/property prices. Its a ludicrous way to run an economy, Poles and light bulbs are irrelevant.

    Economists: Immigrants Actually Boost Wages

    http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/31/economists-immigrants-actually-boost-wages
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    :smirk:
    JosiasJessop said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @tnewtondunn: Early draft of Corbyn's speech out: it's rousing Marxist stuff. Calls Tories "the people who want you to take what you're given"...

    Whereas Corbyn's Labour are: "the people who want to take all you've got."
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,969
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @tnewtondunn: ...Corbyn speech: "Isn't it curious globalisation always means low wages for poor, but used to justify massive payments to top chief execs".

    Actually a valid point.

    Doesn't excuse the rest of JC's bollox though.
    Globalisation is awesome.

    I wish some politician had the balls to say those complaining about low wages and foreigners taking their jobs are in fact lazy work shy Brits.

    If a Pole who can barely speak English can take your job then you aren't the brightest bulb in the chandelier.
    Spoken like a real Tory
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @tnewtondunn: ...Corbyn speech: "Isn't it curious globalisation always means low wages for poor, but used to justify massive payments to top chief execs".

    Actually a valid point.

    Doesn't excuse the rest of JC's bollox though.
    Globalisation is awesome.

    I wish some politician had the balls to say those complaining about low wages and foreigners taking their jobs are in fact lazy work shy Brits.

    If a Pole who can barely speak English can take your job then you aren't the brightest bulb in the chandelier.
    It's great until lazy British lawyers find their jobs outsourced to hard working ones across the globe. Then the collective screams and whining from the Law Society will outgun anything ever heard before.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,969
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @tnewtondunn: ...Corbyn speech: "Isn't it curious globalisation always means low wages for poor, but used to justify massive payments to top chief execs".

    Actually a valid point.

    Doesn't excuse the rest of JC's bollox though.
    Globalisation is awesome.

    I wish some politician had the balls to say those complaining about low wages and foreigners taking their jobs are in fact lazy work shy Brits.

    If a Pole who can barely speak English can take your job then you aren't the brightest bulb in the chandelier.
    Spoken like a real Tory.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,969
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @tnewtondunn: ...Corbyn speech: "Isn't it curious globalisation always means low wages for poor, but used to justify massive payments to top chief execs".

    Actually a valid point.

    Doesn't excuse the rest of JC's bollox though.
    Globalisation is awesome.

    I wish some politician had the balls to say those complaining about low wages and foreigners taking their jobs are in fact lazy work shy Brits.

    If a Pole who can barely speak English can take your job then you aren't the brightest bulb in the chandelier.
    Spoken like a real Tory.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @tnewtondunn: Early draft of Corbyn's speech out: it's rousing Marxist stuff. Calls Tories "the people who want you to take what you're given"...

    Marxist talk about class and capital is going to be a massive turn off for people. The chamber will love it, but this is real marxist stuff. The kind of thing you get on leaflets from the socialist alliance, with lots and lots of small print text going on to many sides.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,764
    edited September 2015
    Sean_F said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @tnewtondunn: ...Corbyn speech: "Isn't it curious globalisation always means low wages for poor, but used to justify massive payments to top chief execs".

    Actually a valid point.

    Doesn't excuse the rest of JC's bollox though.
    Globalisation is awesome.

    I wish some politician had the balls to say those complaining about low wages and foreigners taking their jobs are in fact lazy work shy Brits.

    If a Pole who can barely speak English can take your job then you aren't the brightest bulb in the chandelier.
    Like all things, it's awesome if you benefit from it, and bad if you lose.
    Indeed. As a member of the metropolitan elite working for an organisation all over the world I must confess I do benefit from globalisation.

    But so does everyone else, like trickle down economics.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    DaemonBarber said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @tnewtondunn: ...Corbyn speech: "Isn't it curious globalisation always means low wages for poor, but used to justify massive payments to top chief execs".

    Actually a valid point.

    Doesn't excuse the rest of JC's bollox though.
    Except it isn't valid:

    http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/issues11/

    Increased globalization has been viewed with concern in many advanced economies. There is a common belief that globalization harms the interests of workers, especially unskilled workers, either directly through immigration or indirectly through trade and capital mobility. Particularly with respect to import competition, these beliefs appear to be at odds with the empirical evidence that globalization has only a modest effect on wages, employment, and income inequality in the advanced economies. (By contrast, changes in technology have led to a pervasive shift toward more-skilled workers to the detriment of less-skilled ones.) Moreover, the belief that globalization threatens wages and jobs is contradicted by the historical evidence that free trade and the mobility of labor and capital improve global welfare and tend to improve national welfare for all countries involved.
    I agree with all that, but that is the macro picture. And it is the IMF preaching its gospel.

    In all changes, there are winners (the majority when we're talking about free trade) and losers. Within a given industry where many jobs have migrated to low wage countries, I don't see how you can argue that, within that industry, it does not depress wages. It's simple supply and demand.

    And if insufficient jobs are created in other industries, it will depress wages in general. If it hasn't, then it means we've created those other jobs. I am not totally convinced by the evidence you cite - if you are aggregating wages from the new high wage knowledge industries with those of the industries hit by globalization, that will tend to mask the wage-depressing effects of globalization happening in the latter.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sean_F said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @tnewtondunn: ...Corbyn speech: "Isn't it curious globalisation always means low wages for poor, but used to justify massive payments to top chief execs".

    Actually a valid point.

    Doesn't excuse the rest of JC's bollox though.
    Globalisation is awesome.

    I wish some politician had the balls to say those complaining about low wages and foreigners taking their jobs are in fact lazy work shy Brits.

    If a Pole who can barely speak English can take your job then you aren't the brightest bulb in the chandelier.
    Like all things, it's awesome if you benefit from it, and bad if you lose.
    Indeed. As a member of the metropolitan elite working for an organisation all over the world I must confess I do benefit from globalisation.

    But so does everyone else.
    ABSOLUTELY.... That doesnt mean that there arent consequences. Mop up the consequences from taxing the proceeds....
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    Raging at the moon.

    Waving a 'Kinnock at electors fist' to the real world.

    Lefty idealogues will surely swoon over it.... Polly's next piece will be a treat.

    Do I spend 50 mins listening to platitudes in the background???

    Watch/listen to this instead.

    http://youtu.be/9EYUkV-SHFw
    I've not watched that in days..... good reminder!!!
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,541
    DaemonBarber said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @tnewtondunn: ...Corbyn speech: "Isn't it curious globalisation always means low wages for poor, but used to justify massive payments to top chief execs".

    Actually a valid point.

    Doesn't excuse the rest of JC's bollox though.
    Except it isn't valid:

    http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/issues11/

    Increased globalization has been viewed with concern in many advanced economies. There is a common belief that globalization harms the interests of workers, especially unskilled workers, either directly through immigration or indirectly through trade and capital mobility. Particularly with respect to import competition, these beliefs appear to be at odds with the empirical evidence that globalization has only a modest effect on wages, employment, and income inequality in the advanced economies. (By contrast, changes in technology have led to a pervasive shift toward more-skilled workers to the detriment of less-skilled ones.) Moreover, the belief that globalization threatens wages and jobs is contradicted by the historical evidence that free trade and the mobility of labor and capital improve global welfare and tend to improve national welfare for all countries involved.
    I think it is very likely that globalisation has placed downward pressure on wages in rich countries, as well as leading to more unequal outcomes in such countries.

    However, globalisation has been enormously beneficial for a lot of poor countries, and we shouldn't wish to keep people poor (where being poor can mean starvation) simply in order to boost our own standard of living.

    But, I do think the IMF are being a bit like Dr. Pangloss.
  • Kevin_McCandlessKevin_McCandless Posts: 392
    edited September 2015
    antifrank said:

    I expect that Jeremy Corbyn will do fine on his own terms. He's an experienced speaker and expectations are, as TSE says, low. He should exceed them.

    I'm sure he's been a really good backbencher MP, tending to his constituents. But other than that, giving speeches has been a large, large part of what's he done for the last 30+ years. He will do fine.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,751
    I thought it interesting - and somewhat depressing - that on Radio 4 this morning some Labour bod was saying that Corbyn had to show people that they did not need to be afraid of him.

    What a pathetically low bar and what an indictment of Labour that it has elected as leader a man whose views people are right to be afraid of and to be contemptuous of.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    Eagle doesn't talk "bullshit"

    strong for the early afternoon.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,764
    notme said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sean_F said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @tnewtondunn: ...Corbyn speech: "Isn't it curious globalisation always means low wages for poor, but used to justify massive payments to top chief execs".

    Actually a valid point.

    Doesn't excuse the rest of JC's bollox though.
    Globalisation is awesome.

    I wish some politician had the balls to say those complaining about low wages and foreigners taking their jobs are in fact lazy work shy Brits.

    If a Pole who can barely speak English can take your job then you aren't the brightest bulb in the chandelier.
    Like all things, it's awesome if you benefit from it, and bad if you lose.
    Indeed. As a member of the metropolitan elite working for an organisation all over the world I must confess I do benefit from globalisation.

    But so does everyone else.
    ABSOLUTELY.... That doesnt mean that there arent consequences. Mop up the consequences from taxing the proceeds....
    As I said in my edit, it's just like trickle down economics. Benefits everyone
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    Rafael Behr ‏@rafaelbehr 48 secs49 seconds ago
    Now I'm sure Angela Eagle just told Andrew Neil 'you won't get any bullshit from me.' I'm starting to worry about my hearing.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    The central point that Corbyn makes - that the ultra rich have far too much relative to the rest of us - is pretty much incontestable.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,764
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    Raging at the moon.

    Waving a 'Kinnock at electors fist' to the real world.

    Lefty idealogues will surely swoon over it.... Polly's next piece will be a treat.

    Do I spend 50 mins listening to platitudes in the background???

    Watch/listen to this instead.

    http://youtu.be/9EYUkV-SHFw
    I've not watched that in days..... good reminder!!!
    No spoilers.

    I'm worried about Labour's ground game.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,318
    v funny conference vignette (don't ask, but on BBC Parl) CMS person's speech:

    Comrades: cheer
    Comment about England winning ashes: dead silence
    Comment about womens' football team: cheer
    Comment about rugby: dead silence
    Comment about BBC: resounding cheer

    Metropolitan liberal elite, anyone?
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    blackburn63 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @tnewtondunn: ...Corbyn speech: "Isn't it curious globalisation always means low wages for poor, but used to justify massive payments to top chief execs".

    Actually a valid point.

    Doesn't excuse the rest of JC's bollox though.
    Globalisation is awesome.

    I wish some politician had the balls to say those complaining about low wages and foreigners taking their jobs are in fact lazy work shy Brits.

    If a Pole who can barely speak English can take your job then you aren't the brightest bulb in the chandelier.
    It is however a fact that an over supply of labour compresses wages, the housing shortage means high rent/property prices. Its a ludicrous way to run an economy, Poles and light bulbs are irrelevant.

    Economists: Immigrants Actually Boost Wages

    http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/31/economists-immigrants-actually-boost-wages
    Ah I see an "economist" has supported your point. I'm sure I might be able to find one who disproves it. Look its quite simple, if I own a pub and need a barmaid and 50 people apply I can pay peanuts, surely you don't need an economist to explain that. Its why brain surgeons get paid more than postmen

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    taffys said:

    The central point that Corbyn makes - that the ultra rich have far too much relative to the rest of us - is pretty much incontestable.

    I'd contest it strongly. The question is not how much the ultra rich have. The question is whether the rest of us have enough.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,764
    TOPPING said:

    v funny conference vignette (don't ask, but on BBC Parl) CMS person's speech:

    Comrades: cheer
    Comment about England winning ashes: dead silence
    Comment about womens' football team: cheer
    Comment about rugby: dead silence
    Comment about BBC: resounding cheer

    Metropolitan liberal elite, anyone?

    To be fair I'm being quite when anyone mentions the rugby.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    edited September 2015
    Off topic. For those betting on who will be the next to drop out of the GOP nomination race, Rand Paul seems to be the current front runner along with Pataki and Jindal.

    http://www.kentucky.com/2015/09/26/4058369_death-watch-for-rand-paul-campaign.html?rh=1
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    I heard the truly ghastly sounding Eagle on TWAO. She said nothing of importance and Corbyn will not either. They dont want people to understand the real agenda,
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    taffys said:

    The central point that Corbyn makes - that the ultra rich have far too much relative to the rest of us - is pretty much incontestable.

    Did Corbyn take the full £129,500 salary as LOTO, or did he reject it on principle?
  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    edited September 2015
    Dair said:

    DaemonBarber said:

    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    Dair said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Beverley_C said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    OOoh

    @severincarrell: BREAKING: election court judges rule that @acarmichaelmp "self talking" about his ignorance of #nikkileaks memo does meet legal test 1/2

    So @acarmichaelmp complainants win first round victory on Representation of People's act case: now for further hearings 2/2

    Is there an English translation of this?
    There's evidence that Alastair Carmichael was a very naughty boy but we should have further hearings to find out, if he has been as naughty as his opponents say, we might have a by-election
    He may feel it is in his best interest to resign no rather than face the humiliation of trying to defend his lying in court (on national television).
    Well Carmichael had a better chance of standing down and fighting a by election on the grounds that he may have misled some of his voters. Honourable and probably his best chance of being re-elected.
    As far as I understand it, the lie in question was that he denied being the leaker. I may be wrong, but doesn't he still stand by the claim that at the time of the leak he thought the contents of the memo to be true?
    He later accepted that the memo wan't accurate, and that he was the source of the leak.

    The witch hunt surrounding this and the faux outrage from the SNP and travelling supporters has been quite an eye-opener.

    I agree that he could stand down and seek re-election, but expect howls of outrage from SNP if he does. Perhaps he should if only to lay open the rotten core of our "government".


    He lied about two things which he now accepts were lies at the time.

    That he had no knowledge of the memo before it was published.
    That he was not involved in leaking the memo.

    From the court's statement today and the requests they're making for further information, his only likely hope is that the court rules that the lies did not effect the return of a candidate or that they did not effect his personal character.

    His majority is too small for the first one to have much chance. So basically he will be arguing that lying to win an election is not a reflection on his personal character. Perhaps there is some grounds there if he can establish that most people think "all politicians are liars" to start with?
    Phooey. He leaked a memo, the contents of which he believed to be true. Big feckin deal.
    The lies are that he says he didn't leak. Yeah well whoopdy shit. Sorry if I can't get excited about this piffle.
    Not like he committed mortgage fraud or anything...
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''The question is not how much the ultra rich have. The question is whether the rest of us have enough.''

    That is only the question if you believe that what is potentially available (ie the size of the cake) is much larger than what is available now.

    If it isn't, Jezza is right.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    taffys said:

    ''The question is not how much the ultra rich have. The question is whether the rest of us have enough.''

    That is only the question if you believe that what is potentially available (ie the size of the cake) is much larger than what is available now.

    If it isn't, Jezza is right.

    Nonsense. Why should we feel that we are able to take from the ultra rich what we don't need?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,541
    taffys said:

    ''The question is not how much the ultra rich have. The question is whether the rest of us have enough.''

    That is only the question if you believe that what is potentially available (ie the size of the cake) is much larger than what is available now.

    If it isn't, Jezza is right.

    I think that what is potentially available is bigger than it is now, but it's not getting bigger at the rate we took for granted between 1950-2005.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Sean_F said:

    DaemonBarber said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @tnewtondunn: ...Corbyn speech: "Isn't it curious globalisation always means low wages for poor, but used to justify massive payments to top chief execs".

    Actually a valid point.

    Doesn't excuse the rest of JC's bollox though.
    Except it isn't valid:

    http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/issues11/

    Increased globalization has been viewed with concern in many advanced economies. There is a common belief that globalization harms the interests of workers, especially unskilled workers, either directly through immigration or indirectly through trade and capital mobility. Particularly with respect to import competition, these beliefs appear to be at odds with the empirical evidence that globalization has only a modest effect on wages, employment, and income inequality in the advanced economies. (By contrast, changes in technology have led to a pervasive shift toward more-skilled workers to the detriment of less-skilled ones.) Moreover, the belief that globalization threatens wages and jobs is contradicted by the historical evidence that free trade and the mobility of labor and capital improve global welfare and tend to improve national welfare for all countries involved.
    I think it is very likely that globalisation has placed downward pressure on wages in rich countries, as well as leading to more unequal outcomes in such countries.

    However, globalisation has been enormously beneficial for a lot of poor countries, and we shouldn't wish to keep people poor (where being poor can mean starvation) simply in order to boost our own standard of living.

    But, I do think the IMF are being a bit like Dr. Pangloss.

    Pretty much what I said earlier. That is an IMF propaganda piece, that highlights the best and ignores the worst. A high-level macro view with no granularity.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 47,057
    Off-topic:

    The litle 'uns been asleep for the past few hours, so I've taken the opportunity to finish off Andy Weir's 'The Martian' before I hopefully go to see the film later in the week.

    If you're into hard science fiction, then you really should read it. It was truly an excellent book, and knocks 'The Ice Twins' off the number one slot for best books I've read this year (sorry, Sean).

    For anyone who has not heard of it, it is about an astronaut, Mark Watney, who gets stranded on Mars and has to improvise to survive. It may sound boring, but the author's done a good job of making Watney extremely likeable.

    It should also make an excellent film.

    Although for best pure fiction, it has to be the book I read where Jeremy Corbyn becomes Labour leader. What? You're telling me that it wasn't the product of the imagination of a particularly fevered author? It really happened?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,764
    Here's Jez. Still not done his up properly.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    JosiasJessop said:

    Off-topic:

    The litle 'uns been asleep for the past few hours, so I've taken the opportunity to finish off Andy Weir's 'The Martian' before I hopefully go to see the film later in the week.

    If you're into hard science fiction, then you really should read it. It was truly an excellent book, and knocks 'The Ice Twins' off the number one slot for best books I've read this year (sorry, Sean).

    For anyone who has not heard of it, it is about an astronaut, Mark Watney, who gets stranded on Mars and has to improvise to survive. It may sound boring, but the author's done a good job of making Watney extremely likeable.

    It should also make an excellent film.

    Although for best pure fiction, it has to be the book I read where Jeremy Corbyn becomes Labour leader. What? You're telling me that it wasn't the product of the imagination of a particularly fevered author? It really happened?

    Shame they announced the discovery of flowing water on Mars yesterday.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    My favourite bit of this is going to be Ma Beckett in the background looking like she's sucking lemons :D
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,764
    Good opening by Jez.
  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    Notice how he didn't deny that he would welcome an asteroid strike...
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    :smile:
    DaemonBarber said:

    Notice how he didn't deny that he would welcome an asteroid strike...

  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    JosiasJessop said:

    Off-topic:

    The litle 'uns been asleep for the past few hours, so I've taken the opportunity to finish off Andy Weir's 'The Martian' before I hopefully go to see the film later in the week.

    If you're into hard science fiction, then you really should read it. It was truly an excellent book, and knocks 'The Ice Twins' off the number one slot for best books I've read this year (sorry, Sean).

    For anyone who has not heard of it, it is about an astronaut, Mark Watney, who gets stranded on Mars and has to improvise to survive. It may sound boring, but the author's done a good job of making Watney extremely likeable.

    It should also make an excellent film.

    Although for best pure fiction, it has to be the book I read where Jeremy Corbyn becomes Labour leader. What? You're telling me that it wasn't the product of the imagination of a particularly fevered author? It really happened?

    Funny you should post this right now. I had just finished reading this article about Andy Weir:

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/alexkasprak/the-story-of-andy-weir
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    Has Jeremy Corbyn ever been in the main hall before this conference?
  • GarethoftheVale2GarethoftheVale2 Posts: 2,414
    I'm bored now. This is like an Oscar acceptance speech.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''Nonsense. Why should we feel that we are able to take from the ultra rich what we don't need?''

    Well you could turn that around and say why do they feel they are able to keep from us a giant multiple of what they will ever need?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @tnewtondunn: Early draft of Corbyn's speech out: it's rousing Marxist stuff. Calls Tories "the people who want you to take what you're given"...

    Surely it's Marxists who want to do that?
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    blackburn63 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    blackburn63 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @tnewtondunn: ...Corbyn speech: "Isn't it curious globalisation always means low wages for poor, but used to justify massive payments to top chief execs".

    Actually a valid point.

    Doesn't excuse the rest of JC's bollox though.
    Globalisation is awesome.

    I wish some politician had the balls to say those complaining about low wages and foreigners taking their jobs are in fact lazy work shy Brits.

    If a Pole who can barely speak English can take your job then you aren't the brightest bulb in the chandelier.
    It is however a fact that an over supply of labour compresses wages, the housing shortage means high rent/property prices. Its a ludicrous way to run an economy, Poles and light bulbs are irrelevant.

    Economists: Immigrants Actually Boost Wages

    http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/31/economists-immigrants-actually-boost-wages
    Ah I see an "economist" has supported your point. I'm sure I might be able to find one who disproves it. Look its quite simple, if I own a pub and need a barmaid and 50 people apply I can pay peanuts, surely you don't need an economist to explain that. Its why brain surgeons get paid more than postmen

    I don't think anyone doubts that high skilled immigrants boost our economies. The dispute is whether low skilled ones do. And lumping the two together and reporting on the average doesn't convince anyone.
  • GarethoftheVale2GarethoftheVale2 Posts: 2,414
    I presume Kendall and Cooper aren't there...
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    edited September 2015
    DaemonBarber said:

    Dair said:

    He lied about two things which he now accepts were lies at the time.

    That he had no knowledge of the memo before it was published.
    That he was not involved in leaking the memo.

    From the court's statement today and the requests they're making for further information, his only likely hope is that the court rules that the lies did not effect the return of a candidate or that they did not effect his personal character.

    His majority is too small for the first one to have much chance. So basically he will be arguing that lying to win an election is not a reflection on his personal character. Perhaps there is some grounds there if he can establish that most people think "all politicians are liars" to start with?

    Phooey. He leaked a memo, the contents of which he believed to be true. Big feckin deal.
    The lies are that he says he didn't leak. Yeah well whoopdy shit. Sorry if I can't get excited about this piffle.
    Not like he committed mortgage fraud or anything...
    Leaking a memo doesn't break the law.

    Lying potentially does if it is established that : -

    1. The law applies to the candidate themselves and not only opponents.
    2. The lie impacts on the personal character of the candidate.
    3. The outcome of the election was affected.

    Now the first ruling on point one has just been made and Carmichael is fooked. Whether you are excited or not is pretty much irrelevant. The first of three tests has been ruled on and Carmichael lost.

    Carmichael will now have to take the stand, admit in court on national TV that he lied and try to weasel out how that lie didn't impact points 2 and 3. Even if he is successful the damage will be terminal for his career.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 3,129
    Seems very self indulgent
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,541
    MTimT said:

    Sean_F said:

    DaemonBarber said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @tnewtondunn: ...Corbyn speech: "Isn't it curious globalisation always means low wages for poor, but used to justify massive payments to top chief execs".

    Actually a valid point.

    Doesn't excuse the rest of JC's bollox though.
    Except it isn't valid:

    http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/issues11/

    Increased globalization has been viewed with concern in many advanced economies. There is a common belief that globalization harms the interests of workers, especially unskilled workers, either directly through immigration or indirectly through trade and capital mobility. Particularly with respect to import competition, these beliefs appear to be at odds with the empirical evidence that globalization has only a modest effect on wages, employment, and income inequality in the advanced economies. (By contrast, changes in technology have led to a pervasive shift toward more-skilled workers to the detriment of less-skilled ones.) Moreover, the belief that globalization threatens wages and jobs is contradicted by the historical evidence that free trade and the mobility of labor and capital improve global welfare and tend to improve national welfare for all countries involved.
    I think it is very likely that globalisation has placed downward pressure on wages in rich countries, as well as leading to more unequal outcomes in such countries.

    However, globalisation has been enormously beneficial for a lot of poor countries, and we shouldn't wish to keep people poor (where being poor can mean starvation) simply in order to boost our own standard of living.

    But, I do think the IMF are being a bit like Dr. Pangloss.
    Pretty much what I said earlier. That is an IMF propaganda piece, that highlights the best and ignores the worst. A high-level macro view with no granularity.

    You don't need to accept Corbyn's mad economic policies to agree that the explosion of Chief Executives' salaries, in comparison to the salaries of the average worker, has not been matched by any improvement in corporate performance.


  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    taffys said:

    ''Nonsense. Why should we feel that we are able to take from the ultra rich what we don't need?''

    Well you could turn that around and say why do they feel they are able to keep from us a giant multiple of what they will ever need?

    Meum et tuum.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,228
    Leadership is about listening - no its leading
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/648852123837419520
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    retread of his winning speech re other contenders.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,983
    http://www.hsj.co.uk/newsletter/comment/panic-and-denial-wont-solve-funding-issues/5090395.article?WT.tsrc=email&WT.mc_id=Newsletter170#.VgqQbflViko

    No deniers on PB surely.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Big cheers for "we'll be challenging austerity"
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I'm bored as well - the hall seems to like it. He's delivering it well.
    GarethoftheVale2 said:

    I'm bored now. This is like an Oscar acceptance speech.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,541
    antifrank said:

    taffys said:

    ''The question is not how much the ultra rich have. The question is whether the rest of us have enough.''

    That is only the question if you believe that what is potentially available (ie the size of the cake) is much larger than what is available now.

    If it isn't, Jezza is right.

    Nonsense. Why should we feel that we are able to take from the ultra rich what we don't need?
    I think it depends how the ultra rich have obtained their wealth. Has it been obtained through hard work, shrewd investment, adding shareholder value to the companies that they work for (and to be fair, in many cases, this will be so)?

    Or has it been obtained through rent-seeking, exploitation of political connections, and the creation of cartels? It's far more reasonable to tax the latter than the former.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,318
    edited September 2015
    When he says he will stand up against oppressive regimes of course he means the UK, US, Israel, etc

    Edit: et voila - namechecks Guantanamo and criticises the Cons...
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I'm failing to see what most of this has do with the UK - lots of megaphone sloganising.
    Razedabode said:

    Seems very self indulgent

  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    edited September 2015
    I don't know where this bizarre idea that there is more inequality now in a globalised world than before comes from. The inequality in the UK or the US in, say, 1900 was massively greater than anything we now see, with the super rich such as the Rockefellers or Andrew Carnegie, or the traditionally wealthy of England, contrasting with many ordinary people who were unable to afford basic food and clothing.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    He's awful.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 3,129
    Started well, speech is descending into a bit of an echo chamber now.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,818
    Sean_F said:

    antifrank said:

    taffys said:

    ''The question is not how much the ultra rich have. The question is whether the rest of us have enough.''

    That is only the question if you believe that what is potentially available (ie the size of the cake) is much larger than what is available now.

    If it isn't, Jezza is right.

    Nonsense. Why should we feel that we are able to take from the ultra rich what we don't need?
    I think it depends how the ultra rich have obtained their wealth. Has it been obtained through hard work, shrewd investment, adding shareholder value to the companies that they work for (and to be fair, in many cases, this will be so)?

    Or has it been obtained through rent-seeking, exploitation of political connections, and the creation of cartels? It's far more reasonable to tax the latter than the former.
    Ah, the producer vs predator returns ;)
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Gone all shouty protest.
    chestnut said:

    He's awful.

  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    Labour press team don't do irony?

    Labour Press Team Retweeted
    Arj Singh ‏@singharj 4 mins4 minutes ago
    Corbyn says his leadership will not be about message discipline and then repeats the conference slogan "straight talking, honest politics"
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    This is a poor speech delivered woefully.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,764
    He can't read an autocue can he ?
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 3,129
    And stagnating wages? I don't get it. My pay has risen 3% over the last year. Wages rising quite nicely now...sounds a bit like continuity Miliband to me.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    edited September 2015
    "Straight talking, honest politics" is a very silly strapline - it just begs for journalists to spend much effort gleefully pointing out the obfuscations, fudges and dishonesty.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I've been listening to him with my EdM ears on - lots of it sounds very similar. Funnily enough, it sounds better using EdM's delivery - certainly less threatening.
    Razedabode said:

    And stagnating wages? I don't get it. My pay has risen 3% over the last year. Wages rising quite nicely now...sounds a bit like continuity Miliband to me.

  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Jack Monroe has excelled herself with the worst tweet I've ever seen of hers (to be fair, I don't follow her, so she may have better in her back catalogue):

    "Only people NOT standing for Corbyn was this press section. Rest gave a few mins standing ovation."

    twitter.com/DrJackMonroe/status/648851738091503616
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,228
    Backing steel in Redcar is predictable but is unsustainable with collapse of world steel prices an massive glut in China Shows same old labour cant make desperately difficult decisions
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,764
    Corbyn also needs to learn about cadence
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Apparently the Tories are doing a crap job on the economy - good luck selling that one.
Sign In or Register to comment.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025