Jeremy Corbyn.

[Uh_huh_him]

you seem to have built a view based on the premise that "the rich" keep all their money in a box and nothing happens with it. (i wonder how widespread this view is, alot of left assumptions seem to flow from similar misconceptions). you also seem to have formed the view that reducing a benefit is taking money from someone, rather than not giving them as much, and overlooked that this is an expense of government. this is a widespread view that leads to all sort of logical somersaults, but i suppose its two sides of the same coin.

lets look at the proposition "taking away from the poor" constricts growth. it might reduce some consumption, but growth is a result of all consumption, investment, production etc.
so look at the alternative "take away from the rich". thats going to be about the same for the day to day living, except amplified by the increased amount the rich can consume. if we assume they don't spend it all, the surplus is invested. even if just on deposit, it will go into the machinery of the economy, it doesn't sit idle. the loans that you or a business take out to consume high value goods or expand is funded from this and the economy grows.

if we go back to the "taking" from the poor, its really "not giving". if you reduce this amount, the government pays out less, so need to take less from the poor and rich a like as taxes. see that substantially increased tax free allowance from the Liberals (shamelessly nicked)? who benefits most, the poor/low income or the rich? granted its not so clever for the individual not getting so much, but the economy does keep moving this way. you can keep the economy moving by constantly taking from one group feeding it back to another for no productive output, but you can keep it moving better, grow more, if you let the economy move the money around itself productively.

I understand your point. The economy is far more complicated than the ideological leanings of one side or the other.
There is no singular correct policy, I just believe the current government's policy is ideologically motivated and flawed.

I am glad that Labour have selected someone who is likely to challenge this view directly, rather than fall in line with the perceived wisdom of the time.
I believe this was the mistake Labour made throughout the last term.

The fact remains this government have failed to achieve the economic targets they set themselves in 2010.
If they haven't achieved these by 2020, then the opposition should be in a very strong position.

 

[Castello]

I find it difficult to empathise with those that are always referred to as poor or vulnerable, I never quite know who these are and how exactly they acquire this title.

I do not need faux outrage, why not itemise their income as I suspect you mean those in receipt of benefits, these are in the public domain so it can easily be obtained.

We can then to different degrees decide whether they really are poor or vulnerable, I have been both in receipt of benefits some years ago and worked extremely hard for the most part and I can honestly say I feel far more vulnerable working for a living than not.

I just find it unhelpful when these terms are so readily offered in any debate with an almost non negotiable caveat of non challenge and total acceptance.

Since I am someone who talks about the poor and vulnerable, let me explain firstly why I do and secondly how to establish who I am talking about.

This is not an attempt to place people into boxes as good or bad, likeable or dislikeable, decent or indecent. In fact it precisely the opposite. Its an attempt to see people as people, whilst recognising some have greater need for help than others. Talking about benefit claimants, people with mental or physical health issues, working people on low wages etc divides people into boxes marked as sympathetic or unsympathetic. It may be disputed that this is the case, but the way ive heard benefit claimants or people with mental health issues described tells me the level of prejudice that exists. The lack of empathy some people feel for these groups isnt my fault, I find it fairly, possibly too, easy to empathise with people who struggle with life. Perhaps because I have at times myself. This isnt faux outrage. Its compassion.

with regard to knowing whom Im talking about, whilst I may not personally be able to identify each of them, I am aware that the client groups i've worked with and the people I live amongst contains a high proportion of them. In more practical terms its easy to define poverty. the EU and OECD definition of poverty is 60% of the median income.

http://www.poverty.org.uk/summary/eapn.shtml

the UK median income in 2013/14 was £23,566. 60% of this is £14,139. This would obviously vary when children are included. Very quickly you start to see why the level of the Tory benefit cap becomes a problem for families with 2 or more children.

Vuinerability is slightly harder to define, but local authority housing and social care departments and the NHS make this definition every day.

The reality as you implicitly state is that the majority of people that we are referring to are working. However they are on low hourly rates or part time and insecure employment.

I dont wish to lecture you, rather to explain who it is I refer to. the definition is of course negotiable, its just that its been already so well defined by generations of economists and sociologists, that it becomes easier and more coherent to accept who is being talked about. You are free to reject this definition, its just then becomes impossible to have any meaningful discussion, when we cant even agree on who we're talking about. From your tone I'm guessing that wasn't your intention. I hope I've helped clarify.

 

[Hastings gull]

Nonsense. I briefly rebutted a (trivial) assertion that Jeremy Corbyn should be compared to corrupt politicians elsewhere.

I went onto say that I like what I have heard from him on policy.

You started ranting about Diane Abbott and her son's schooling.

You are rather muddled, my friend. The only mention you made about policy in our exchange is:
Human nature does involve the survival of the fittest and primarily self-interested motivations - which is why we desperately need leadership and policy making from someone like Corbyn. There is no mention here of any policy or indeed that you like what you have heard . .You also state that you briefly rebutted a trivial assertion that he should be compared to corrupt politicians, whereas I said no such thing about him and indeed stated that whilst he may personally be quite corruption-free, the same might not apply to his cronies, given human nature. I gave the example of Abbott to illustrate the hypocrisy we have already seen from one of his team. Nothing more, nothing less. It would behove you to read everything more carefully first before you indulge in comments such as pathetic and nonsense, to which you resort rather too easily.

 

[burstead]

here are some policies of JC that the majority of the public agree with.
renationalising the railways.
75% top rate tax on incomes over 1 million.
international convention on banning nuclear weapons.
rent controls on private landlords.
mandatory living wage.
cut tuition fees.
didn't want iraq war and bombings in Syria.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...most-people-actually-agree-with-10407148.html
and this is from the Independent which is a tory rag.

 

[Notters]

This stuff about him not singing is making some people look rather silly.

Would an atheist be disrespectful not to sing the National anthem? How about a Buddhist? Or a republican.

It's not like he jeered or anything!

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1373...abour_leader_refuses_to_sing_national_anthem/

 

[Hastings gull]

here are some policies of JC that the majority of the public agree with.
renationalising the railways.
75% top rate tax on incomes over 1 million.
international convention on banning nuclear weapons.
rent controls on private landlords.
mandatory living wage.
cut tuition fees.
didn't want iraq war and bombings in Syria.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...most-people-actually-agree-with-10407148.html
and this is from the Independent which is a tory rag.

The Independent has rather smudged the issue here. Whilst the majority of the public might well be in favour of an agreement to ban nuclear weapons throughout the world, Corbyn believes in unilateral disarmament. That is something totally different. I strongly suspect that the majority are rather more realistic when it comes to Trident, if some very unstable and unpleasant regimes will ignore any such agreement.

 

[Pavilionaire]

This stuff about him not singing is making some people look rather silly.

Would an atheist be disrespectful not to sing the National anthem? How about a Buddhist? Or a republican.

It's not like he jeered or anything!

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1373...abour_leader_refuses_to_sing_national_anthem/

Wayne Rooney has over 100 caps and has either remained silent or else mumbled his way through the national anthem every time, yet nobody questions his commitment to England. Corbyn remains silent and is crucified.

5Live spent 10 mins last night talking to the Labour Shadow Chief Sec to the Treasury about his "non-singing" the anthem when it would have been so much more interesting discussing policy issues. All media outlets are guilty of trivialising the news, they've really gone to town on Corbyn and his Shadow Cabuinet and it's not right.

 

[beorhthelm]

the UK median income in 2013/14 was £23,566. 60% of this is £14,139. This would obviously vary when children are included. Very quickly you start to see why the level of the Tory benefit cap becomes a problem for families with 2 or more children.

to note that the current benefit cap is equivalent to an income of over £30k, and a cap at £23k is equivalent to around 29k.

 

[Hastings gull]

This stuff about him not singing is making some people look rather silly.

Would an atheist be disrespectful not to sing the National anthem? How about a Buddhist? Or a republican.

It's not like he jeered or anything!

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1373...abour_leader_refuses_to_sing_national_anthem/

I don't particularly relish the thought of Corbyn becoming PM, but do tend to agree that this is just an attempt to have a go. and is really a storm in a tea cup. Had he sung with gusto, then doubtless he would have been accused of betraying his principles. As you say, had he openly shown contempt, then that would have been a different matter particularly at such an occasion.

 

[nicko31]

You can see Corbyn is going to have some fans, there is something to be said about his straight forward style. PM Questions was quite refreshing

But only "some" fans, you need more than that to ever win an election.

 

[Billy the Fish]

In more practical terms its easy to define poverty. the EU and OECD definition of poverty is 60% of the median income.

http://www.poverty.org.uk/summary/eapn.shtml

the UK median income in 2013/14 was £23,566. 60% of this is £14,139. This would obviously vary when children are included. Very quickly you start to see why the level of the Tory benefit cap becomes a problem for families with 2 or more children.

That definition of poverty is open to debate of course, it is actually relative poverty which is different to absolute poverty. You say it is easy to define, but it really shouldn't be as simple as that equation suggests. Imagine a situation where there is a depression and high unemployment. Everybody would be worse off, but based on the statistics many people would be lifted out of poverty.

Relative poverty is a problem of course, but I struggle to take the figures when someone can be defined as in poverty one day and out the next without changing their own personal situation.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

You are rather muddled, my friend. The only mention you made about policy in our exchange is:
Human nature does involve the survival of the fittest and primarily self-interested motivations - which is why we desperately need leadership and policy making from someone like Corbyn. There is no mention here of any policy or indeed that you like what you have heard . .You also state that you briefly rebutted a trivial assertion that he should be compared to corrupt politicians, whereas I said no such thing about him and indeed stated that whilst he may personally be quite corruption-free, the same might not apply to his cronies, given human nature. I gave the example of Abbott to illustrate the hypocrisy we have already seen from one of his team. Nothing more, nothing less. It would behove you to read everything more carefully first before you indulge in comments such as pathetic and nonsense, to which you resort rather too easily.

It would behove you to stop digging...!!

 

[Castello]

This stuff about him not singing is making some people look rather silly.

Would an atheist be disrespectful not to sing the National anthem? How about a Buddhist? Or a republican.

It's not like he jeered or anything!

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1373...abour_leader_refuses_to_sing_national_anthem/

I am sure no one will be surprised to hear I am both a republican and an internationalist. This has meant throughout my adult life I have refused to sing any national anthem. This has meant at times not singing either the british nor israeli national anthem and family weddings causing some offence to my family. After independence in south africa, I was at a Unison national conference. there were over 1000, mostly left of centre delegates. They sang the South African national anthem. I and a friend of mine who I arm twisted into staying sat, were the only two in the audience who wouldnt sing.

As i've explained on each of these occasions, none of this is about showing off or trying to cause offence. It's this one simple premise. Singing about national pride for me would be a betrayal of my beliefs. If I cant stay consistent to my beliefs when singing a song, how would people be able to believe the sincerity of my beliefs on more complex and important issues.

This I imagine is what Jeremy Corbyn is feeling. For me it is easy. My family and my political friends and allies know me and accept me for who I am, good and bad. They may not agree with me but they know I will always do it. For JC it is means facing abuse and hostility from the media and politicians wanting to attack him. Yet how can he convince voters he is genuine, if he cant stand up for what he believes in the face of the most personal abuse, on trivial issues like this. In the long run, it will help how he is percieved.

 

[glasfryn]

Wayne Rooney has over 100 caps and has either remained silent or else mumbled his way through the national anthem every time, yet nobody questions his commitment to England. Corbyn remains silent and is crucified.

5Live spent 10 mins last night talking to the Labour Shadow Chief Sec to the Treasury about his "non-singing" the anthem when it would have been so much more interesting discussing policy issues. All media outlets are guilty of trivialising the news, they've really gone to town on Corbyn and his Shadow Cabuinet and it's not right.

you won't catch me singing the national anthem either, this does not mean I dislike any of the royal family personally,(although there are a few that are absolute idiots) and I had great respect for the queen mum.
I am sure that there were many who fought in the last war with the same ideals not all of them were royalists, and it is they, all of them that I have the deepest respect for.
but for them we would have all been bloody facists

 

[Castello]

That definition of poverty is open to debate of course, it is actually relative poverty which is different to absolute poverty. You say it is easy to define, but it really shouldn't be as simple as that equation suggests. Imagine a situation where there is a depression and high unemployment. Everybody would be worse off, but based on the statistics many people would be lifted out of poverty.

Relative poverty is a problem of course, but I struggle to take the figures when someone can be defined as in poverty one day and out the next without changing their own personal situation.

You are of course correct, and we could have a discussion about the merits of using a measure of absolute or relative poverty. However the point I was making was there is a way to define poverty. I used the relative measure in part because that is easier to calculate a figure, to highlight my point.

 

[Mackenzie]

 

[BigGully]

Since I am someone who talks about the poor and vulnerable, let me explain firstly why I do and secondly how to establish who I am talking about.

This is not an attempt to place people into boxes as good or bad, likeable or dislikeable, decent or indecent. In fact it precisely the opposite. Its an attempt to see people as people, whilst recognising some have greater need for help than others. Talking about benefit claimants, people with mental or physical health issues, working people on low wages etc divides people into boxes marked as sympathetic or unsympathetic. It may be disputed that this is the case, but the way ive heard benefit claimants or people with mental health issues described tells me the level of prejudice that exists. The lack of empathy some people feel for these groups isnt my fault, I find it fairly, possibly too, easy to empathise with people who struggle with life. Perhaps because I have at times myself. This isnt faux outrage. Its compassion.

with regard to knowing whom Im talking about, whilst I may not personally be able to identify each of them, I am aware that the client groups i've worked with and the people I live amongst contains a high proportion of them. In more practical terms its easy to define poverty. the EU and OECD definition of poverty is 60% of the median income.

http://www.poverty.org.uk/summary/eapn.shtml

the UK median income in 2013/14 was £23,566. 60% of this is £14,139. This would obviously vary when children are included. Very quickly you start to see why the level of the Tory benefit cap becomes a problem for families with 2 or more children.

Vuinerability is slightly harder to define, but local authority housing and social care departments and the NHS make this definition every day.

The reality as you implicitly state is that the majority of people that we are referring to are working. However they are on low hourly rates or part time and insecure employment.

I dont wish to lecture you, rather to explain who it is I refer to. the definition is of course negotiable, its just that its been already so well defined by generations of economists and sociologists, that it becomes easier and more coherent to accept who is being talked about. You are free to reject this definition, its just then becomes impossible to have any meaningful discussion, when we cant even agree on who we're talking about. From your tone I'm guessing that wasn't your intention. I hope I've helped clarify.

My point was more that politically if you are defined as poor then you are somehow undeniably vulnerable and once deemed vulnerable you must remain unchallenged.

Poverty is a little easier to define, but the arbitrary formula of 60% of the UK median income only offers some kind of relative poverty and shouldn't immediately, in my view define them as vulnerable.

My own Son who is 22 years who graduated a year ago is in what we consider a decent job and his annual salary is a rather disappointing £34.00 per week above this imaginary poverty line, he is neither poor nor vulnerable.

So whilst accepting there are vulnerable people that should receive unstinting support, I am less inclined to accept poverty in the context used by the left is so prevalent, more a dysfunctionality that often manifest itself into a position of need that then makes them vulnerable.

Its a more complex set of circumstances that rely on different solutions, just saying benefit claimants must be both vulnerable and/or poor is not always true.

 

[Hungry Joe]

PMQs was refreshing I thought. If this new style of debate in the House lasts then all good (not necessarily the public questions, that would become stale, but I don't believe for a minute JC is that naïve, good opening idea though to set a new tone). Credit where it's due, I though DC played it with a pretty straight bat too and attempted to answer most of the questions fairly directly and showed respect for JC. Who you were more convinced by will obviously depend on your world view, but I'd imagine a fair few of the undecided are at least going to start getting a bit more interested in Parliamentary debate again, at least I hope so.

 

[Hungry Joe]

I preferred your original post mate, made me chuckle.

 

[Mackenzie]

I preferred your original post mate, made me chuckle.

In all honesty I couldn't be doing with the argument, some think Corbyn is some sort of force of nature some think he's a prick, that's what it boils down to.

Love and peace to you all, even the nutters.