Corbynomics: A Dystopia

Thrugelmir

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But being honest with ourselves for a minute, this was long forgotten history. You say he's only apologised now due to political opportunism, but that's not really the case. This historical stuff has been hunted down by the media and presented to him. The opportunity you talk about has been forced upon him.

Seems to me it's a situation of a rock and a hard place. Apologise and be accused of opportunism, don't apologise and be accused of being a terrorist sympathiser.

Going to be no different for anybody that's posted something on Facebook or a blog. It's going to comeback to haunt them when they least want it to. McD was offered the job. No doubt if he had applied he wouldn't even have made the interview stage. As with JC never considered good enough before.

Mistermeaner

TipsyMipsy wrote: »

On the plus side he is not enthusiastic about robbing the poor to further enrich the rich.

Excellent first post

You're correct he's enthusiastic about robbing everyone to make everyone poor

robin61

TipsyMipsy wrote: »

On the plus side he is not enthusiastic about robbing the poor to further enrich the rich.

The poor in the UK are not robbed by anyone. If they have a low paid job they get nearly 11k tax free. People with families get pretty generous tax credits and child benefit. Those who don't work can hardly be robbed as everything they get is paid for by those who do.
If the poor are being robbed as you suggest I wonder why they are jumping on the back of lorries in Calais just to get to the UK.l would suggest if you are poor then there are not many çountries where you would be better off than the UK.

Generali

cepheus wrote: »

Let's not pretend that an anonymous back bencher was an integral part of the peace process. That's disingenuous at best.

The bloke is an apologist for violent thugs because they happen to be of the extreme left. He's been playing at Common Room politics for decades and his appalling decisions are coming back to haunt him.

Generali

ruggedtoast wrote: »

If you bothered to do any research into what actually happened, rather than just believing what the Daily Mail tell you, you would probably enjoy a less nauseated life.

Personally I am glad I can walk around London without the risk of IRA bombs killing me, and Jeremy Corbyn and McDonnel were a part of the peace process.

You really have fallen for it. They absolutely were not a part of the peace process. Did they meet with with ministers or the unionists or just with a bunch of Trots?

Moby

robin61 wrote: »

The poor in the UK are not robbed by anyone. If they have a low paid job they get nearly 11k tax free. People with families get pretty generous tax credits and child benefit. Those who don't work can hardly be robbed as everything they get is paid for by those who do.
If the poor are being robbed as you suggest I wonder why they are jumping on the back of lorries in Calais just to get to the UK.l would suggest if you are poor then there are not many çountries where you would be better off than the UK.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/29/poverty-child-rising-welfare-cuts-tory-claims
Really!

Generali

Moby wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/29/poverty-child-rising-welfare-cuts-tory-claims
Really!

This is simply the same silly argument that confuses income inequality with poverty.

If my income rises but other people's rise by more then I haven't got poorer, I've just got richer less slowly than others. However, according to the poverty data I've got poorer despite actually getting richer!

robin61

Moby wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/29/poverty-child-rising-welfare-cuts-tory-claims
Really!

Yes really.

I notice the picture of a food bank. In our town many of the customers of the food bank are also customers of the Offlicense, tobacconist, bingo and bookies.

Nobody in the UK has to live in grinding poverty as the left suggest. If they are then maybe they need to look at their own priorities. They will be less well off than others for sure but that's an entirely different thing than being forced ro live in poverty.

I stick by my post. There are not many countries who have a more generous welfare system than the UK.

Fella

Generali wrote: »

This is simply the same silly argument that confuses income inequality with poverty.

If my income rises but other people's rise by more then I haven't got poorer, I've just got richer less slowly than others. However, according to the poverty data I've got poorer despite actually getting richer!

Exactly. Good article on that:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11697568/Our-poverty-rules-are-an-insult-to-everyone-its-time-to-rip-them-up.html

"...The current rules, originally dreamt up by Left-wing academics in the Sixties, state that somebody is poor if they live in a household on below 60pc of median earnings, regardless of their actual quality of life or access to essentials.
But this measures income inequality, not poverty. Under that definition, poverty can never realistically be eradicated in a capitalist society. If median incomes go up by 10pc, and that of the bottom 20pc by 9pc, delivering huge improvements to the living standards of everybody in the country, poverty would still be deemed to have gone up. It’s bonkers. “Poverty” would remain rife even if the bottom decile earned £100,000 a year..."

padington

Generali wrote: »

This is simply the same silly argument that confuses income inequality with poverty.

If my income rises but other people's rise by more then I haven't got poorer, I've just got richer less slowly than others. However, according to the poverty data I've got poorer despite actually getting richer!

If I gave you and all your friends, associates and every member of your family £100 each today but I gave everyone else in the world a million pounds at the same time, would you feel richer or poorer than you did yesterday?

The truth is, it doesn't matter, the key thing is you would be p!ssed off. How 'rich' or 'poor' you feel is in relation to everyone else.