Every one of a right mind would rather see the Trident cost spent on social need.
If it's part of the budget that NATO members commit to spending on defence the cost of Trident would go on aircraft, tanks, or some other area of defence instead...not housing, the NHS or the needy, so are these supposedly right minded folk also looking for us to pull out of NATO?
Would be a lovely world if there wasn't a need for armies and the like but unfortunately that's not the world we live in.
If they were allowed to hear them without the accompanying deeply negative commentary from just about every media outlet and those with vested interests.
As things stand, most people who take only a casual interest in politics would think Corbyn was a communist IRA man who advocates lynching the royal family!
Of course, if ordinary voters were actually to hear Labours unadulterated messages about going after the tax cheats, closing the obscene gap between the wealthiest and the rest, bringing in a real living wage, cutting down on interfering in the affairs of sovereign states, seriously investing in infrastructure, job creation, housing, education and the NHS people might actually vote for it in huge numbers! And, of course, those at the very top - the 1%, if you like, wouldn't want that one little bit.
So... punative taxes, withdrawing from foreign affairs which has given UK its worldwide status, investing without explaining where the money is coming from are going to be popular. I think not.
They haven't but 'they' have ensured that a hyped up nuclear threat to the UK from Putin, together with continued alarmist reporting on North Korean nuclear testing has created the 'need' for nuclear weapons.
The reality, of course, is that the overwhelming majority of countries don't have nuclear weapons and don't need them.
The arms lobby is a powerful one in this country. But presented with the facts, without the scare mongering, I'm sure that many millions of voters would rather see the Trident money invested in health, education and other public services.
The nuclear deterent has worked for 70+ years. And he wants to lose it on a chance that his ideaa is better. Utter fantasy.
If it's part of the budget that NATO members commit to spending on defence the cost of Trident would go on aircraft, tanks, or some other area of defence instead...not housing, the NHS or the needy, so are these supposedly right minded folk also looking for us to pull out of NATO?
Would be a lovely world if there wasn't a need for armies and the like but unfortunately that's not the world we live in.
Only 5 of the 28 NATO member states fulfil their commitment to spending on defence.
If they were allowed to hear them without the accompanying deeply negative commentary from just about every media outlet and those with vested interests.
As things stand, most people who take only a casual interest in politics would think Corbyn was a communist IRA man who advocates lynching the royal family!
Of course, if ordinary voters were actually to hear Labours unadulterated messages about going after the tax cheats, closing the obscene gap between the wealthiest and the rest, bringing in a real living wage, cutting down on interfering in the affairs of sovereign states, seriously investing in infrastructure, job creation, housing, education and the NHS people might actually vote for it in huge numbers! And, of course, those at the very top - the 1%, if you like, wouldn't want that one little bit.
Indeed but you have ironically failed to list anything meaningful or with substance. How is Corbyn going to find the money to fund all this 'investment'? Is he going to borrow or print money?
Perhaps he'll ratchet up taxes?
Come back to me when you solved the glaring fund gap....;-)
Indeed but you have ironically failed to list anything meaningful or with substance. How is Corbyn going to find the money to fund all this 'investment'? Is he going to borrow or print money?
Perhaps he'll ratchet up taxes?
Come back to me when you solved the glaring fund gap....;-)
The Conservative 2015 election manifesto had a £30 billion black hole in the funding plans. Yet lots of people voted for them.
The Conservative 2015 election manifesto had a £30 billion black hole in the funding plans. Yet lots of people voted for them.
That's because they repeated the phrase 'long-term economic plan' non-stop and people believed them. Labour also has a much steeper mountain to climb on issues of economic credibility. It must also learn to condense its messaging and do what the Tories do - project it constantly, until people absorb it.
Indeed but you have ironically failed to list anything meaningful or with substance. How is Corbyn going to find the money to fund all this 'investment'? Is he going to borrow or print money?
Perhaps he'll ratchet up taxes?
Come back to me when you solved the glaring fund gap....;-)
That's because they repeated the phrase 'long-term economic plan' non-stop and people believed them. Labour also has a much steeper mountain to climb on issues of economic credibility. It must also learn to condense its messaging and do what the Tories do - project it constantly, until people absorb it.
Indeed but you have ironically failed to list anything meaningful or with substance. How is Corbyn going to find the money to fund all this 'investment'? Is he going to borrow or print money?
Perhaps he'll ratchet up taxes?
Come back to me when you solved the glaring fund gap....;-)
To be fair, he has said he intends to fund it through printing money - like the QE which bailed the banks out. Cirbynistas say if we can do it to bail out banks, why can't we do it to invest in infrastructure, create jobs and growth etc.
AND he intends to tax higher earners at 50% and go after Amazon, Google et al who do not pay their share of tax.
So... punative taxes, withdrawing from foreign affairs which has given UK its worldwide status, investing without explaining where the money is coming from are going to be popular. I think not.
Nope. Just going after the dodgepot tax evaders and avoiders that rob public services of vital billions.
Ah, so foreign affairs is just an international dick wagging contest is it? Look where the last few decades of foreign policies have led us. I'd rather see us follow the lead of forward thinking countries like Ireland, Sweden and Switzerland. It's time to park all of the Rule Britannia bollocks.
As for financing a programme of investment? Well, austerity sure as hell isn't working. Time to start borrowing the best bits of Keynesian economics again.
To be fair, he has said he intends to fund it through printing money - like the QE which bailed the banks out. Cirbynistas say if we can do it to bail out banks, why can't we do it to invest in infrastructure, create jobs and growth etc.
AND he intends to tax higher earners at 50% and go after Amazon, Google et al who do not pay their share of tax.
Yes I've heard him use the term QE loosely but is QE sustainable when you trying to:
1) Nationalise the Railways, The energy market, Remove private healthcare provision from the NHS.
2) Introduce a massive house building program? (which I agree is a priority)
3) To fulfill his various spending pledges across the country? i.e National investment bank, green investment?
Yes I've heard him use the term QE loosely but is QE sustainable when you trying to:
1) Nationalise the Railways, The energy market, Remove private healthcare provision from the NHS.
2) Introduce a massive house building program? (which I agree is a priority)
3) To fulfill his various spending pledges across the country? i.e National investment bank, green investment?
Well, that is the million dollar question, to which Corbyn has no answer.
I think his aspirations are reasonable, I just do not trust him or those around him not to mess it up. McDonnell established a panel of economic experts to help him regain Labour's economic credibility ( very good move I thought) but disappointingly, they have all resigned, saying McDonnell et al are impossible to work with, unprofessional and indecisive. That is also what many MPs tell us about Corbyn. So that is the concern, it's not so much his policies I disagree with, on the whole, but his competence.
Most people in the UK would agree with Jeremy Corbyn's socially concerned views. If we can get the message out there, then we will find a lot of support - as this clip from The One Show illustrates.
Ditching our nuclear weapons
Open door immigration policy
Doing an Merkel and letting in loads of alleged refugees
Leaving NATO
Sitting down for talks with ISIS
Ditching our nuclear weapons
Open door immigration policy
Doing an Merkel and letting in loads of alleged refugees
Leaving NATO
Sitting down for talks with ISIS
There is also his support for a united Ireland, his attitude to the Falklands, his views on not meeting our obligations to NATO countries under attack, and his total lack of support for business.
The worry for me is his renationalisation of railways. I support the policy but I fear the unions bringing the country's railways to a standstill with never-ending strikes. Corbyn would not be able to stand up to the unions ridiculous pay claims, not would he want to. If he did, we would either have strikes. If he did not, we would have huge pay increases for rail workers and other workers. I think he is too sympathetic to trades unions to run the country wisely.
If they were allowed to hear them without the accompanying deeply negative commentary from just about every media outlet and those with vested interests.
As things stand, most people who take only a casual interest in politics would think Corbyn was a communist IRA man who advocates lynching the royal family!
Of course, if ordinary voters were actually to hear Labours unadulterated messages about going after the tax cheats, closing the obscene gap between the wealthiest and the rest, bringing in a real living wage, cutting down on interfering in the affairs of sovereign states, seriously investing in infrastructure, job creation, housing, education and the NHS people might actually vote for it in huge numbers! And, of course, those at the very top - the 1%, if you like, wouldn't want that one little bit.
Neither would anyone else like it. They don't want to be taxed to the hilt so that Corbyn can spend it like water like Labour always does.
Why, even the simpletons who don't understand Corbyn's utter brilliance would joined us enlightened folk if only positive views of Corbyn were permitted to be heard.
would? They do.
The 50% income tax band and the mansion tax both have the support of most voters.
Rail nationalisation has the support of most voters.
I dunno if rail nationalisation would survive scrutiny. As soon as people realised that one Union could bring the whole country's railways to a standstill the support would vanish.
Comments
If it's part of the budget that NATO members commit to spending on defence the cost of Trident would go on aircraft, tanks, or some other area of defence instead...not housing, the NHS or the needy, so are these supposedly right minded folk also looking for us to pull out of NATO?
Would be a lovely world if there wasn't a need for armies and the like but unfortunately that's not the world we live in.
So... punative taxes, withdrawing from foreign affairs which has given UK its worldwide status, investing without explaining where the money is coming from are going to be popular. I think not.
The nuclear deterent has worked for 70+ years. And he wants to lose it on a chance that his ideaa is better. Utter fantasy.
Indeed but you have ironically failed to list anything meaningful or with substance. How is Corbyn going to find the money to fund all this 'investment'? Is he going to borrow or print money?
Perhaps he'll ratchet up taxes?
Come back to me when you solved the glaring fund gap....;-)
That's because they repeated the phrase 'long-term economic plan' non-stop and people believed them. Labour also has a much steeper mountain to climb on issues of economic credibility. It must also learn to condense its messaging and do what the Tories do - project it constantly, until people absorb it.
In part QE, same as George Osbourne in 2011 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2046243/Debt-crisis-George-Osborne-says-quantitative-easing-shore-economy.html
(Incidentally, supposedly 'financially proficient' chancellor Osborne doubled the national debt in his 6 years in no.11).
As a side note, Obama has used QE several times during his presidency to help keep the economy afloat.
Austerity sure as hell ain't working. Investment is needed and quickly.
Agree
To be fair, he has said he intends to fund it through printing money - like the QE which bailed the banks out. Cirbynistas say if we can do it to bail out banks, why can't we do it to invest in infrastructure, create jobs and growth etc.
AND he intends to tax higher earners at 50% and go after Amazon, Google et al who do not pay their share of tax.
Ah, our posts crossed. So here are two people who heard the message.
Nope. Just going after the dodgepot tax evaders and avoiders that rob public services of vital billions.
Ah, so foreign affairs is just an international dick wagging contest is it? Look where the last few decades of foreign policies have led us. I'd rather see us follow the lead of forward thinking countries like Ireland, Sweden and Switzerland. It's time to park all of the Rule Britannia bollocks.
As for financing a programme of investment? Well, austerity sure as hell isn't working. Time to start borrowing the best bits of Keynesian economics again.
Yes I've heard him use the term QE loosely but is QE sustainable when you trying to:
1) Nationalise the Railways, The energy market, Remove private healthcare provision from the NHS.
2) Introduce a massive house building program? (which I agree is a priority)
3) To fulfill his various spending pledges across the country? i.e National investment bank, green investment?
Well, that is the million dollar question, to which Corbyn has no answer.
I think his aspirations are reasonable, I just do not trust him or those around him not to mess it up. McDonnell established a panel of economic experts to help him regain Labour's economic credibility ( very good move I thought) but disappointingly, they have all resigned, saying McDonnell et al are impossible to work with, unprofessional and indecisive. That is also what many MPs tell us about Corbyn. So that is the concern, it's not so much his policies I disagree with, on the whole, but his competence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7lsRbDKOXg
Ditching our nuclear weapons
Open door immigration policy
Doing an Merkel and letting in loads of alleged refugees
Leaving NATO
Sitting down for talks with ISIS
There is also his support for a united Ireland, his attitude to the Falklands, his views on not meeting our obligations to NATO countries under attack, and his total lack of support for business.
The worry for me is his renationalisation of railways. I support the policy but I fear the unions bringing the country's railways to a standstill with never-ending strikes. Corbyn would not be able to stand up to the unions ridiculous pay claims, not would he want to. If he did, we would either have strikes. If he did not, we would have huge pay increases for rail workers and other workers. I think he is too sympathetic to trades unions to run the country wisely.
Owen Smith said that. Jeremy took the mickey out of it on Dispatches.
Neither would anyone else like it. They don't want to be taxed to the hilt so that Corbyn can spend it like water like Labour always does.
Why, even the simpletons who don't understand Corbyn's utter brilliance would joined us enlightened folk if only positive views of Corbyn were permitted to be heard.
Praise him.
The 50% income tax band and the mansion tax both have the support of most voters.
Rail nationalisation has the support of most voters.
I dunno if rail nationalisation would survive scrutiny. As soon as people realised that one Union could bring the whole country's railways to a standstill the support would vanish.