Oh Jeremy Corbyn (15 Viewers)

[clint van damme]

The audience wasn’t buying what the Tory minister was saying either. More than a few shouts of lies coming from the audience while she was trying to protest her innocence. Don’t think the audience was buying it at all.

let's hope everyone sees through what they're doing.

To be told by the doctor you have cancer must be devastating. To know it's going to financially ruin you and your family to get treatment is just inhumane cruelty.

 

---

[Ian1779]

The audience wasn’t buying what the Tory minister was saying either. More than a few shouts of lies coming from the audience while she was trying to protest her innocence. Don’t think the audience was buying it at all.

Why would anyone buy it - it's the same meaningless platitudes wheeled out time and time again. Surely most rational human beings would look at how incapable some of these people in key positions are and worry about where it's heading.

 

[skybluetony176]

Why would anyone buy it - it's the same meaningless platitudes wheeled out time and time again. Surely most rational human beings would look at how incapable some of these people in key positions are and worry about where it's heading.

It was a good question time last night. Not dominanted by brexit for a change and was mostly about the NHS and PFI’s.

The Tory minister was trying to play the “I love the NHS” card, claiming she’d volunteered for for the NHS while claiming that they’re wasn’t a secret policy to run the NHS to breaking point so privatisation and/or pay at source looks like a good idea. Boo’s and shouts of lies rang from the audience.

Andy Burnham although walking on thin ice as a previous health minister and a member of the Blair and Browns government who exacerbated the PFI situation reiterated Corbyn saying about the public sector being the default supplier for public services. There was a lot on PFI contracts. Although it’s clear that Labour or new labour if you prefer accelerated us down this road the Tories have reined it in some what. It is pretty clear that the Tories are using them as a means to an end in my mind especially where the NHS is concerned and hiding the true costs of public spending.

Labour are pretty clear on a vision for the NHS, they need a coherent vision on brexit though to be truly electable although maybe not while the Tories are in charge. Can’t help but feel phase 2 of brexit negotiations could yet trigger an election this year. Labour need to unite and be coherent quickly.

 

[mrtrench]

Zzzz same old "I'm alright Jack" drivel from you

I work in the NHS buying stuff. I know for an absolute nailed on fact that the Tories have NOT put loads of additional money in, apart from the millions on the pointless reorganisation

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

It's a clear sign that someone has won an argument when the other ignores facts and trots out irrelevant insults, as if that proves anything:

1. This link shows money that has been put into the NHS over time.

The NHS budget and how it has changed

It is a fact that the money has increased and I very much doubt that anyone that works in the buying department of the NHS would have any special insight into the NHS balance sheet.

2. There is absolutely nothing in my post that could be considered 'I'm alright Jack'. For the most part I'm just sharing publicly available information. If you want to be taken seriously within a debate, at least recognise facts and support your opinion from them. Insults and fact denial isn't helpful.

 

[Captain Dart]

PFI trend downwards, but I don't like them one bit, it is bollocks to say the private sector take all the risk, Carillion have derisked their position and left a huge pile of steaming shit which the government will have to clean up.


This graph only goes up to 2015, would like to see what last 2 years look like.

 

[mrtrench]

PFI trend downwards, but I don't like them one bit, it is bollocks to say the private sector take all the risk, Carillion have derisked their position and left a huge pile of steaming shit which the government will have to clean up.


This graph only goes up to 2015, would like to see what last 2 years look like.

Agree; dislike them intensely. It's just a weasel way to hide debt, even if it ends up costing far more than being straight in the first place.

 

[fernandopartridge]

When it comes to public infrastructure there is no such thing as risk transfer. The sole objective of PFI is to keep treasury spending off balance sheet. Instead it's left to local authorities, civil service departments and NHS trusts to find the money from their annual budget.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[clint van damme]

Agree; dislike them intensely. It's just a weasel way to hide debt, even if it ends up costing far more than being straight in the first place.

exactly, but it's a chep headline to say Labour will increase public borrowing by X amount when they suggest bringing PFI financed projects back under public control.

There have been cross party committees which have concluded PFI don't give tax payers value for money, perhaps a cross party committee could look into a solution so regardless of whose in No 10 we rid ourselves of it.

 

[mrtrench]

exactly, but it's a chep headline to say Labour will increase public borrowing by X amount when they suggest bringing PFI financed projects back under public control.

There have been cross party committees which have concluded PFI don't give tax payers value for money, perhaps a cross party committee could look into a solution so regardless of whose in No 10 we rid ourselves of it.

Up to a point, yes. And I'm definitely in favour of cross-party committees to resolve thorny issues. There are technical reasons why it's not just a simple transfer from a forward obligation into debt. These are some things to consider; I don't know if it would end up making sense to bring them in house or not without more details:

1. If the buy-out terms are not written into the contracts, the current owners could play hard ball and insist on a payment of the present value of all future obligations. That wouldn't bring a saving - it just changes the timing of the payments (from the future to now).

2. When the government takes the real debt on balance sheet it has to find investors to buy it. It depends on lots of factors and the amount of money, but it's possible that the interest rate on that debt could increase as a result. That could have a non-linear impact on all debt payments (increasing the interest rate on the whole of the debt, over time, rather than just the amount needed to buy out the PFI contracts).

The devil is in the detail. It's valid to raise it as a subject for analysis but it could turn out beneficial to stay as we are for now, with regrets, and not do it again.

 

[clint van damme]

Up to a point, yes. And I'm definitely in favour of cross-party committees to resolve thorny issues. There are technical reasons why it's not just a simple transfer from a forward obligation into debt. These are some things to consider; I don't know if it would end up making sense to bring them in house or not without more details:

1. If the buy-out terms are not written into the contracts, the current owners could play hard ball and insist on a payment of the present value of all future obligations. That wouldn't bring a saving - it just changes the timing of the payments (from the future to now).

2. When the government takes the real debt on balance sheet it has to find investors to buy it. It depends on lots of factors and the amount of money, but it's possible that the interest rate on that debt could increase as a result. That could have a non-linear impact on all debt payments (increasing the interest rate on the whole of the debt, over time, rather than just the amount needed to buy out the PFI contracts).

The devil is in the detail. It's valid to raise it as a subject for analysis but it could turn out beneficial to stay as we are for now, with regrets, and not do it again.

Linked this on another thread but there are some suggestions in here:
With PFI our hands are tied – so what can be done? — CHPI

 

[mrtrench]

Linked this on another thread but there are some suggestions in here:
With PFI our hands are tied – so what can be done? — CHPI

It's a good point about interest rate swaps and it makes sense that they are part of the financing. The PFI provider would have taken on the interest rate risk as part of the contract and hence had to hedge it using swaps. The article is correct that the cost of tearing up the tickets on those swaps would today be huge - making it ever more likely that bringing them in-house now would not make financial sense. I think that the article's conclusion, that renegotiation may be the best step forward, is sensible.

 

[mrtrench]

I read in the Times today that Hillary Benn is top of the Deselection list. What a shame - he's an intelligent and thoughtful man and I respect him. The paper also suggests that the new Momentum council in Haringey plan to cut senior teachers' salaries by 40%.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I read in the Times today that Hillary Benn is top of the Deselection list. What a shame - he's an intelligent and thoughtful man and I respect him. The paper also suggests that the new Momentum council in Haringey plan to cut senior teachers' salaries by 40%.

A thoughtful man who got a standing ovation from the Tories as he called for bombs to fall on Syria. Funny how he was silent on the crimes of our allies in Saudi, or how he didn't call for bombs on Boko Haram.

 

[Grendel]

A thoughtful man who got a standing ovation from the Tories as he called for bombs to fall on Syria. Funny how he was silent on the crimes of our allies in Saudi, or how he didn't call for bombs on Boko Haram.

His father would be disgusted at these comments and actually I believe would even be revolted by Mr Corbyn - shame on you

 

[Grendel]

I read in the Times today that Hillary Benn is top of the Deselection list. What a shame - he's an intelligent and thoughtful man and I respect him. The paper also suggests that the new Momentum council in Haringey plan to cut senior teachers' salaries by 40%.

The even more disturbing news of course is the momentum brigade have reinstated the rather revolting Clive Lewis back in the fold.

O’Mara will be next and then the ultimate Nazi grandee livingstone will return to the fold.

Meanwhile the radicals from the 80’s - Linda Bellos and Peter Tatchell are outlawed and classes as transphobic bigots. Corbyn stays silent.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

His father would be disgusted at these comments and actually I believe would even be revolted by Mr Corbyn - shame on you

There is no shame in stating the truth but plenty in cherry picking the parts that suit your argument. Where is Benn's condemnation of the treatment of homosexuals and apostates in Saudi Arabia, as he provided for ISIS? Why does he not call out the war crimes of an ally to whom we have sold billlions of pounds worth of weapons?

He called for bombs on Syria in the full knowledge that there would be collateral damage. So did the Tory backbenchers who standed to applaud him.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

The even more disturbing news of course is the momentum brigade have reinstated the rather revolting Clive Lewis back in the fold.

O’Mara will be next and then the ultimate Nazi grandee livingstone will return to the fold.

Meanwhile the radicals from the 80’s - Linda Bellos and Peter Tatchell are outlawed and classes as transphobic bigots. Corbyn stays silent.

Gets offended at criticism of Benn then labels a politician a Nazi

 

[Captain Dart]

I read in the Times today that Hillary Benn is top of the Deselection list. What a shame - he's an intelligent and thoughtful man and I respect him. The paper also suggests that the new Momentum council in Haringey plan to cut senior teachers' salaries by 40%.

Momentum will cause its own downfall, but they will trash the place before they leave.

 

[Captain Dart]

The even more disturbing news of course is the momentum brigade have reinstated the rather revolting Clive Lewis back in the fold.

O’Mara will be next and then the ultimate Nazi grandee livingstone will return to the fold.

Meanwhile the radicals from the 80’s - Linda Bellos and Peter Tatchell are outlawed and classes as transphobic bigots. Corbyn stays silent.

Where is Degsy?
Derek Hatton (@DegsyHatton) on Twitter

 

[Grendel]

There is no shame in stating the truth but plenty in cherry picking the parts that suit your argument. Where is Benn's condemnation of the treatment of homosexuals and apostates in Saudi Arabia, as he provided for ISIS? Why does he not call out the war crimes of an ally to whom we have sold billlions of pounds worth of weapons?

He called for bombs on Syria in the full knowledge that there would be collateral damage. So did the Tory backbenchers who standed to applaud him.

Where is Jeremy Corbyn and his criticism of labour members who said they’d take one of his MP’s and rape her if she wasn’t fat, ugly and probably having a period?

Most labour MP’s applauded Benn that day you dimwit.

 

[Grendel]

Gets offended at criticism of Benn then labels a politician a Nazi

Do you think a man who believes women are bitches and should just “get down” are representative of a progressive society?

Defend livingstone at your peril.

 

[mrtrench]

There is no shame in stating the truth but plenty in cherry picking the parts that suit your argument. Where is Benn's condemnation of the treatment of homosexuals and apostates in Saudi Arabia, as he provided for ISIS? Why does he not call out the war crimes of an ally to whom we have sold billlions of pounds worth of weapons?

He called for bombs on Syria in the full knowledge that there would be collateral damage. So did the Tory backbenchers who standed to applaud him.

Apologies for having triggered you. I'm sure he is against homophobia and Boko Haram but just felt it inappropriate to bring up during a debate on Syria.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Do you think a man who believes women are bitches and should just “get down” are representative of a progressive society?

Defend livingstone at your peril.

I didn't say I liked the man just didn't think he was a Nazi-unless you have evidence otherwise

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Apologies for having triggered you. I'm sure he is against homophobia and Boko Haram but just felt it inappropriate to bring up during a debate on Syria.

He has had countless opportunities to do so but not once have I seen him criticise the Saudi regime or call for bombs on Nigeria. No triggering on my part-just a desire for hypocrisy to be called out on his part.

By his own reasoning we should have invaded Saudi years ago.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Where is Jeremy Corbyn and his criticism of labour members who said they’d take one of his MP’s and rape her if she wasn’t fat, ugly and probably having a period?

Most labour MP’s applauded Benn that day you dimwit.

Labour MPs applauding one of their own happens every day. A standing ovation from the Tories for one is a much rarer event. They couldn't believe their luck at an opposition MP leading the calls to start another foreign intervention. His eloquence has been confused for substance, just as it is with the other 'dimwit' Rees-Mogg.

 

[clint van damme]

The even more disturbing news of course is the momentum brigade have reinstated the rather revolting Clive Lewis back in the fold.

O’Mara will be next and then the ultimate Nazi grandee livingstone will return to the fold.

Meanwhile the radicals from the 80’s - Linda Bellos and Peter Tatchell are outlawed and classes as transphobic bigots. Corbyn stays silent.

as you say, reinstated, after an investigation and O'Mara was suspended. What happened to the two tory fuck wits who flirted with eugenics, were they suspended? Oh no, that's right, they were given positions in government. You must have been appalled?

 

[Captain Dart]

as you say, reinstated, after an investigation and O'Mara was suspended. What happened to the two tory fuck wits who flirted with eugenics, were they suspended? Oh no, that's right, they were given positions in government. You must have been appalled?

Eugenics: the skeleton that rattles loudest in the left's closet | Jonathan Freedland

 

[clint van damme]

Eugenics: the skeleton that rattles loudest in the left's closet | Jonathan Freedland

so no one involved in the current labour set up has called for it's use or recently attended a very dubious gathering to discuss it then like the tories I mentioned?

 

[mrtrench]

Eugenics is an interesting topic. One that obviously has strong negative connotations because the Nazis and also one could argue Pol Pot used it alongside genocide, which I believe everyone here would condemn. However what if it were used, say, to ensure that children were born without sickle cell or other genetic issues? Would that necessarily be wrong?

I'm writing without very much understanding of the topic at all, so possibly others know much more (or possibly not if reading about it is abhorrent ).

 

[mrtrench]

Actually I'll go further. There should be no topic that is off bounds for discussion and education. Becoming knowledgeable about something is not the same thing as believing in doing it in a bad way. Should people not attend meetings or discuss quantum physics because it can be used for nuclear weapons?

 

[clint van damme]

Actually I'll go further. There should be no topic that is off bounds for discussion and education. Becoming knowledgeable about something is not the same thing as believing in doing it in a bad way. Should people not attend meetings or discuss quantum physics because it can be used for nuclear weapons?

it would depend who the attendees were. people are quick to pick up on Corbyns fellow attendees at various meeting so I think it's right to highlight who Toby Young was there with. I wouldn't want to be in a room with them to be honest.
I suppose it comes back to the freedom of speech argument but listening to people who advocate paedophilia is a step to far for me personally.

 

[clint van damme]

To be honest, this is where these debates get into pointless tit for tat rather than sensible debate.
You can drag up unpleasantness from both parties and it just become petty point scoring.

There are more sensible debates to be had around Corbyn. Hasn't the last week proved him right on PFI and that there is some credibility on his central bank idea?
When is he going to make his position clear on Europe and what will happen to him and the party if he doesn't find common ground with the pro EU majority in Labour?

More important issues in my mind.

 

[mrtrench]

it would depend who the attendees were. people are quick to pick up on Corbyns fellow attendees at various meeting so I think it's right to highlight who Toby Young was there with. I wouldn't want to be in a room with them to be honest.
I suppose it comes back to the freedom of speech argument but listening to people who advocate paedophilia is a step to far for me personally.

Advocating a crime is different though isn't it? Just like someone attending a Eugenics conference and advocating genocide. But attending a conference on Paedophilia and discussing ways to stop children being harmed isn't wrong.

 

[mrtrench]

To be honest, this is where these debates get into pointless tit for tat rather than sensible debate.
You can drag up unpleasantness from both parties and it just become petty point scoring.

There are more sensible debates to be had around Corbyn. Hasn't the last week proved him right on PFI and that there is some credibility on his central bank idea?
When is he going to make his position clear on Europe and what will happen to him and the party if he doesn't find common ground with the pro EU majority in Labour?

More important issues in my mind.

I agree - wasn't going to engage in that - none of them are perfect and moreover as they are all politicians they are probably all less perfect than normal people. I know next to nothing about Eugenics though so I picked up on that.

 

[Captain Dart]

So how is this charging policy for a Labour conference justified?