An Evening With... Jeremy Corbyn

fatbeetle

ruggedtoast wrote: »

No, I actually think that everyone should have the opportunity to make enough to make a net contribution.

And what of those who choose not to make a contribution?

fatbeetle

cells wrote: »

When I rented during my first full time job after university It was always shared. I think my first flat was the equivalent of £600 per month in todays money but shared between two people.

Dear god, I currently let out our house in Cornwall, three bed barn conversion, for £700 pcm.

Moby

westernpromise wrote: »

A child brought up by middle class parents in leafy Surrey is far more likely to do well in life than one raised by a single parent in North Peckham.

Despite which, Labour persistently demonises middle class parents in leafy Surrey and heaps them with so many taxes to fund benefits for idlers in North Peckham that they have to limit the size of their own families.

To a middle class family an extra child is a cost; to a single parent in Peckham an extra child is a pay rise.

If you can't afford children don't have them. Nobody is entitled to do so.

But the children are here anyway and we dont have politically controlled birth control in this country......yet.......
So you in effect blame the children, thereby creating more disadvantage and a new generation of victims living on benefits. Its not the answer. The people in Surrey need to be more real and less selfish and think for the greater good. It benefits the whole of society then.

Moby

Wild_Rover wrote: »

The bit in bold is a pretty important consideration, usually ignored by RuggedT.

I quite agree that people are perfectly entitled to make thier own decisions, but RT seems to think that having made bad decisions, a waster is "entitled" to a higher standard of living than he/she can actually afford, because other folk who made different (better?) decisions have a better lifestyle. If you remove the consequences from bad decisions, there's no reason for folk to make good decisions.

Rugged and his comrades would happily take cash off the sensible and give it to the fool. Sorry, Rugged, but the population won't fall for that stuff again.

You can rage as much as you like, but your student union-level Dear Leader will be able to do absolutely nothing to change the 'system', because even if (or probably "when") he wins the Leadership again, he will have doomed a once great party to 10-20 years of electoral oblivion...... and its your kind "thinking" that will have helped him achieve that brilliant outcome. Well done. You will have driven the moderates from what will then be "your" party and without support from the middle ground, NO party can win an election. You are making your own bed and you will just have to lie in it. You'll find it firmly attached to the opposition benches in the House of Commons.

WR

The people you caricature are cartoons and not representative of real life. People are generally more complicated and motivated by many things. Your brother would probably not agree with your picture of him and give a completely different perspective. Get him on here and lets hear his side.;)

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

But the children are here anyway and we dont have politically controlled birth control in this country......yet.......
So you in effect blame the children, thereby creating more disadvantage and a new generation of victims living on benefits. Its not the answer. The people in Surrey need to be more real and less selfish and think for the greater good. It benefits the whole of society then.

so what is the way of providing maximum opportunity for every child even if their parents choose not to work.

[Deleted User]

Moby wrote: »

The people you caricature are cartoons and not representative of real life. People are generally more complicated and motivated by many things. Your brother would probably not agree with your picture of him and give a completely different perspective. Get him on here and lets hear his side.;)

It would be great if you were right, but I assure you I described him accurately. If anything I was too kind.

I am unlikely to get him on here, as he and I have not on good terms. He was a parasite on the neck of our family for decades, even demanding cash from family friends. On the first occasion I took Mrs Wild Rover to the family home, while I was in the kitchen making tea and coffee, he asked my then student girlfriend if she could "lend" him £50.

I can remember him shouting at me, the night before my degree exams, ranting that if the government were happy to pay thousands a month to keep folk in prison, they should be prepared to pay the same to folk like him on the dole to keep them out of it. He really didn't fancy the prospect of me doing well, as it would show him up. He told me not to move away from home for my first job because "they" (whoever "they" were) should give me a job near home; I happily moved over 150 miles. I later realised that, if course, he wanted me to stay at home as I was another source of cash. Not so easy when 150 miles apart.

To claim that folk like my brother didn't or don't exist is just delusional but that isn't the point. I have no problem helping those who can't support themselves - age, illness, disability. Rugged and his comrades are welcome to give as much of their own cash as they want to folk like by brother, but it's interesting that when I asked him how much more of my income I should pay, or how much of my savings I should hand over, the reply was silence and instead came the waffle. That's fine, but waffle is not a programme for government, as Labour under Corbyn will find out.

WR

westernpromise

Moby wrote: »

But the children are here anyway and we dont have politically controlled birth control in this country......yet.......
So you in effect blame the children, thereby creating more disadvantage and a new generation of victims living on benefits. Its not the answer. The people in Surrey need to be more real and less selfish and think for the greater good. It benefits the whole of society then.

Nonsense. RT offers weepy anecdotes of poor children in Peckham, but the actual facts are that the party he supports opposes everything that would improve the lot of such children. Grammar schools, free schools, free places - he should welcome the lot, but not a bit of it. And here's why - this is John Prescott on this subject in 2005:

""My argument is that middle-class parents are concerned, and rightly so, about the quality of education for their children, which sadly is not the same for working-class parents," he said. "If you set up a school and it becomes a good school, the great danger is that's the place they want to go to."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/prescott-hits-out-over-great-danger-from-blairs-school-reforms-519970.html

ISIL? Zika? AIDS? Knife crime? The obesity epidemic? Those aren't dangers. Danger is good schools. Danger is good education. We can't have that. I live near Henrietta Barnet school and he's right, that school is a huge danger. All those dangerous kids, getting a good education, getting on in life and learning to think! And those middle-class parents, the b~stards! Being concerned about the quality of their kids' education? Why can't they not give a stuff, like "working class" parents? Eh? Like Prescott says?

The people most responsible for the existence and plight of RT's canonical poor child in Peckham are people like RT himself, who've ensured that the mother is funded to have as many children as she likes, who rob the taxpayers of places like Surrey for the money, and who then have the effrontery to blame the people they're robbing for the consequences of their own stupidity.

The single best way to eliminate this problem is to make sure it doesn't pay better to ponce off others than it does to work. Meanwhile, the kids I really feel sorry for are the ones held back from all they might achieve because people like RT have decided that everyone's conditions must be made equally bad. There are kids who could have gone to a grammar school but the likes of RT closed it; kids who could be at a free school but RT voted it down; kids who could have had an assisted place but RT put a stop to it.

They grow up, they remember what he did and they vote Tory.

ruggedtoast

westernpromise wrote: »

Nonsense. RT offers weepy anecdotes of poor children in Peckham, but the actual facts are that the party he supports opposes everything that would improve the lot of such children. Grammar schools, free schools, free places - he should welcome the lot, but not a bit of it. And here's why - this is John Prescott on this subject in 2005:

""My argument is that middle-class parents are concerned, and rightly so, about the quality of education for their children, which sadly is not the same for working-class parents," he said. "If you set up a school and it becomes a good school, the great danger is that's the place they want to go to."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/prescott-hits-out-over-great-danger-from-blairs-school-reforms-519970.html

ISIL? Zika? AIDS? Knife crime? The obesity epidemic? Those aren't dangers. Danger is good schools. Danger is good education. We can't have that. I live near Henrietta Barnet school and he's right, that school is a huge danger. All those dangerous kids, getting a good education, getting on in life and learning to think! And those middle-class parents, the b~stards! Being concerned about the quality of their kids' education? Why can't they not give a stuff, like "working class" parents? Eh? Like Prescott says?

The people most responsible for the existence and plight of RT's canonical poor child in Peckham are people like RT himself, who've ensured that the mother is funded to have as many children as she likes, who rob the taxpayers of places like Surrey for the money, and who then have the effrontery to blame the people they're robbing for the consequences of their own stupidity.

The single best way to eliminate this problem is to make sure it doesn't pay better to ponce off others than it does to work. Meanwhile, the kids I really feel sorry for are the ones held back from all they might achieve because people like RT have decided that everyone's conditions must be made equally bad. There are kids who could have gone to a grammar school but the likes of RT closed it; kids who could be at a free school but RT voted it down; kids who could have had an assisted place but RT put a stop to it.

They grow up, they remember what he did and they vote Tory.

Just out of interest are you more in favour of the birch being brought back into schools or is the slipper adequate for most state school children of working class parents?

You know, those f3ckless ingrates who go through life "robbing" you of your privileged lifestyle and having the temerity not to grovel and pull their forelocks when you drive past in your chaffeur driven Jaguar.

Well, you know whats good for them. You must do because you have more money, the accumulation of which, apparently is the only measure worth applying.

Its a shame that penniless loser, Gandhi, isn't still around so you could give him a lecture in pulling his socks up and sponging like a parasite on society.

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Just out of interest are you more in favour of the birch being brought back into schools or is the slipper adequate for most state school children of working class parents?

You know, those f3ckless ingrates who go through life "robbing" you of your privileged lifestyle and having the temerity not to grovel and pull their forelocks when you drive past in your chaffeur driven Jaguar.

Well, you know whats good for them. You must do because you have more money, the accumulation of which, apparently is the only measure worth applying.

Its a shame that penniless loser, Gandhi, isn't still around so you could give him a lecture in pulling his socks up and sponging like a parasite on society.

oh dear toxic toastie never will actual discuss actual policies : only made up nonsense to suit the trotskyite 'narrative.
why not consider thinking about policies that actually help real people rather than smug 'revolutionaries'.

ruggedtoast

Wild_Rover wrote: »

:rotfl:

How much more of this more gentle form of politics can we take? :T

WR

Don't worry, I suspect the final PPR is on the way, then you can all go back to agreeing with each other and complaining that single mothers are robbing you of the the shirts from your backs.