Forums
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Pokermonster
26 Jul 15 15:53
Joined:
Date Joined: 14 Sep 04
| Topic/replies: 12,992 | Blogger: Pokermonster's blog
I think it's a possibility because, if he wins, there will surely be a swift vote of no confidence from the party.

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
Page 1 of 5  •  Previous 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 180
By:
STUDYFORM
When: 26 Jul 15 19:44
I hope not.
He's what's needed for the Labour party and (imo) for the country.
For a change, an intelligent man who's clear on his ideals and policies.

The press and media don't like him, but then again they never want to give ANY positivity to ANYTHING that might rock the right-wing boat, nor indeed any story regarding Labour.
By:
mafeking
When: 26 Jul 15 19:52
does sort of have the feel of john sergeant in SCD about it Laugh a similar air of farce

you can't be the leader if only about 10% of the your MPs support you
By:
BARROWBOY
When: 26 Jul 15 19:53
Hollande has been a disaster for France,with the same policies why would Corbyn be any different for the UK?
By:
STUDYFORM
When: 26 Jul 15 20:10
2 Reasons, Barrowboy.

1. France isn't having a disaster, it's growth is better than the UK's, it's 5th largest economy in the world. Our press will be negative about Hollande because it is intrinsically Right-leaning and he isn't.
2. France isn't here, the policies would only be relative to each other.

We are all being told that anti-austerity wouldn't work, yet ALL the evidence is that it would make everything a whole lot better and that it is, in fact, austerity that doesn't help. This is one of Corbyn'a main stances.
By:
akabula
When: 26 Jul 15 20:33
Talking up an Islamic extremist can't have helped his chances.
Not sure we want his likes with any real power.
By:
TiptheOdds
When: 26 Jul 15 21:18
Labour Party at a crossroads imo.

They either support Corbyn and return to their roots as a party of the working man, offering a real alternative to the neo-con policies that are designed to make the rich richer and the rest poor, and to once again provide real opposition to the Tories.

Or they go with any of the other spineless suits and continue as a Blairite Tory-lite bourgeois ´party´ that puts power before principles, stands for nothing and cannot be trusted.

I hope I´m wrong but I suspect they will go with the latter.
By:
Eeternaloptimist
When: 26 Jul 15 21:43
Studyform

Hollande is a clown who got a right royal spanking over his 75% tax debacle for higher earners. France spent a couple of years in the doldrums as a result of that and has at least in part returned to growth when it was quietly dropped towards the end of last year. Socialism is a cancer.

Corbyn may well be what the core voters of Labour want but if you do vote him in you do so in full knowledge that parts of the press will go for him. So don't start blubbing about how unfair it is when you get thrashed at the next election. The people saw socialism in action in the 60's and 70's and that was enough for them. Never again. They don't need the papers to tell them that.
By:
Foinavon
When: 26 Jul 15 22:19
Jezzer will be the next PM, get used to it!
By:
akabula
When: 26 Jul 15 22:27
They should go for a real socialist like Scargill. Laugh
By:
STUDYFORM
When: 26 Jul 15 22:27
So don't start blubbing about how unfair it is when you get thrashed at the next election
As ever a wrong assumption. I am not nor have I ever been a "core Labour voter". I am not voting for anyone.

Maybe it's just the way you write things, eo. Very and unnecessarily confrontational and with loads of unfounded stuff....
like: The people saw socialism in action in the 60's and 70's and that was enough for them. Never again.
A statement taken from your head and put out as fact.
Why you would be concerned about higher Tax rates is beyond me as it affects so few people and even then only takes the higher rate off of substantial, and not all, earnings. The people earning this sort of money don't need your help and usually have loads of ways at not paying it anyway. I'm guessing (though I could be wrong) that you wouldn't fall into the brackets you are so keen to protect anyway.

Still after all our battling and I'm not being drawn in as it's twunts like you who make me give up on this forum, I feel that;
Socialism is a cancer.
is a ridiculous remark and entirely wrong.
I've addressed your post to me and couldn't give a flying toss about your next batch of strange and probably rude retort.

I used to enjoy posting and taking part in debate/conversation, doing competitions and even fun stuff (which doesn't appear much any more) on here, now I don't, I even stopped posting or looking at the politics forum as any form of meaningful discussion was always hijacked/spoiled by you and one or two others, your escaping onto chitchat has ruined this place for me too. Nearly everything you post has some form of insult or directed nasty comment to anyone who discusses anything vaguely political which doesn't fawn and gush over the Tories or Thatcher. So. in short, you and the few mates in your collective can stuff this thread, politics and the rest of this forum up your arse, I'm off and despite what you might think, it's a shame.
By:
Dotchinite
When: 26 Jul 15 22:32
Will someone who keeps on about austerity give me the figures for govt spending between 2014 and 2016 and tell me why they view it as austerity and at what point on Osbournes predictions does austerity cease.

I dont think ive ever seen  a sensible definition of austerity on here which leads me to suspect people are just repeating what their favourite tabloid says.
By:
Facts
When: 26 Jul 15 22:36
Tip theOdds

Absolutely agree with you.
By:
Facts
When: 26 Jul 15 22:39
And STUDYFORM
By:
Dotchinite
When: 26 Jul 15 22:44
Perhaps you would answer my question facts.
By:
akabula
When: 26 Jul 15 22:47
Anybody of ages with Eeter will know what he's going on about when he talks of socialism in the 60s/70s.
The pound was being devalued 2 or 3 times a year, inflation reached 27% and interest rates were at 15%.
We worked in our offices under candlelight because of the unofficial strike of the ETU, a union run by self proclaimed communists.
Our Dustbins weren't being emptied and rubbish littered the streets. We couldn't bury our dead. Travel was in in chaos.
And the Ban the Bomb brigade were in full flow. Our education system was systematically torn apart. Grammar schools disappeared.
The list is endless and it was pure hell at times.
By:
Facts
When: 26 Jul 15 23:00
Dotchinite     26 Jul 15 22:44 
Perhaps you would answer my question facts.


Count the increase in the number of foodbanks.
By:
Foinavon
When: 26 Jul 15 23:01
Get it right aka, it was pure hell all the time.
I emigrated to France for a while and used to take visitors from the UK to the local supermarket to buy bags of sugar and candles with their £50 travel allowance.
By:
Dotchinite
When: 26 Jul 15 23:03
Ok so you wont answer it.Not a surprise.
By:
Facts
When: 26 Jul 15 23:05
Thought I did. It's a good measure imo.
By:
akabula
When: 26 Jul 15 23:06
What did people do before the food banks Facts?
By:
akabula
When: 26 Jul 15 23:08
Ah the £50 travel allowance, I'd forgotten about that.
I also now remember having to delay a holiday because I couldn't get petrol for my car.
And when I did get it I was allowed 3 gallons only and that after queuing for hours.
By:
Dotchinite
When: 26 Jul 15 23:09
You answer proves my point I think that you dont really have any sensible definition of austerity. I wouldnt worry as I doubt for one moment that guys like Corbyn have any better idea other than it makes a good soundbite.
By:
akabula
When: 26 Jul 15 23:33
Also Facts would you defend the policies of the 60s and 70s that caused so much heartbreak for the masses?
By:
akabula
When: 26 Jul 15 23:54
It's funny how Facts can't face facts.Blush
By:
Eeternaloptimist
When: 27 Jul 15 00:08
I don't think my post was especially confrontational Studyform. I merely pointed out salient facts that socialism brought the country to the brink of ruination at that time and that if Corbyn is the front man Labour will probably shore up the hard left vote but will lose the election because the people who tend to decide elections are the ones in the middle who will be turned off by a hard left agenda especially once the media get into them.

Quite why that drew your diatribe I don't know but feel free to call me a twunt if it pleases you. It certainly doesn't irk me in any way.
By:
Eeternaloptimist
When: 27 Jul 15 00:10
But if you need a number for a good therapist I can ask around for you.
By:
dukeofpuke
When: 27 Jul 15 00:11

Jul 26, 2015 -- 11:00PM, Facts wrote:


Dotchinite     26 Jul 15 22:44  Perhaps you would answer my question facts.Count the increase in the number of foodbanks.


its because the feckless are lazy c u next tuesdays and cant be ars ed to shop, clean,look after themselves.all they want to do his steal, drink, smoke, shag

By:
dukeofpuke
When: 27 Jul 15 00:14
if all the fkin do gooders out there, took one of these fkin food bankers in, under their wing, ie they live alone in a 5 bedroom house, the problem would be solved overnight
By:
dukeofpuke
When: 27 Jul 15 00:17
nobody needs help in this country we have THE WELFARE SYSTEM

go to fkin ethiopia in the 80's and as bob said give us your fkin money
By:
akabula
When: 27 Jul 15 00:18
When the popularity of the foodbanks begin to wain I think they will extend their range to include drink and cigarettes.
By:
spellingandgrammarchecker
When: 27 Jul 15 00:19
Foinavon   
26 Jul 15 22:19 
Jezzer will be the next PM, get used to it!


Facts
21 Apr 15 05:17 
But Ed 's of the a' right stuff'
Get used to him guys.
He's your next Prime Minister
By:
Foinavon
When: 27 Jul 15 00:22
Laugh You rumbled me S&GC Blush not much of a haul unfortunately, in fact empty netsSad.
By:
spellingandgrammarchecker
When: 27 Jul 15 00:24
Dotchinite     
26 Jul 15 22:44 
Perhaps you would answer my question facts.


Facts   
26 Jul 15 23:00 
Count the increase in the number of foodbanks.


Newham is the 2nd or 3rd poorest borough in London.

Newham has 17 (it may be 27) betting shops in East Ham High Street alone.

How many foodbanks are there in Newham?

Akabula
raise these points with Facts, he has me blocked. Laugh
By:
akabula
When: 27 Jul 15 00:26
spellingandgrammarchecker  • July 27, 2015 12:24 AM BST 
Dotchinite     
26 Jul 15 22:44 
Perhaps you would answer my question facts.
Facts   
26 Jul 15 23:00 
Count the increase in the number of foodbanks.
Newham is the 2nd or 3rd poorest borough in London.
Newham has 17 (it may be 27) betting shops in East Ham High Street alone.
How many foodbanks are there in Newham?
Akabula
raise these points with Facts, he has me blocked


I can't as he has me blocked as well.
By:
akabula
When: 27 Jul 15 00:26
Wink
By:
spellingandgrammarchecker
When: 27 Jul 15 00:28
He wouldn't answer anyway.
By:
Eeternaloptimist
When: 27 Jul 15 01:24
The lefts ability to convince themselves that what they want to happen actually will happen is staggering but they never learn. When one nonsense pronouncement is shot down they just move on to the next one without a backward glance towards their tattered reputation. Shame is not a word which enters their lexicon. Any man who cares not for his honour or reputation will go far in the world today it seems.
By:
Facts
When: 27 Jul 15 09:33
Pompous bullshit !!
By:
pawras
When: 27 Jul 15 10:23
People were a lot more broke in the 70s and there were no food banks and no one starved.

I’m always no so amazed at the lack of actual research by lefties on this site.

There’s been f all austerity so far, all that has happened is a slight reduction in public spending as % of GDP.

Because of the persistent unsubstantiated bleating bullsh&t by the left on the politics forum (inc Facts before he ran away) here’s some figures I put together from  http://www.ukPublicSpending.co.uk/




Yr Population (Mill) % Chng On Prv Yr GDP (Calc from debt % data) % Chng On Prv Yr Nat Debt (Bill) % Chng On Prv Yr Nat Debt %of GDP % Chng On Prv Yr Pub Spnd Bill % Chng On Prv Yr Pub Spnd % of GDP % Chng On Prv Yr
1950 50.079 na 13.31 na 25.8 na 193.89 na 4.78 na 35.89 na
1951 50.29 0.421% 14.78 11.09% 25.92 0.47% 175.34 -9.57% 5.62 17.57% 38.01 5.91%
1952 50.536 0.489% 15.98 8.12% 25.89 -0.12% 161.99 -7.61% 6.25 11.21% 39.07 2.79%
1953 50.784 0.491% 17.12 7.12% 26.05 0.62% 152.16 -6.07% 6.58 5.28% 38.41 -1.69%
1954 51.032 0.488% 18.12 5.86% 26.58 2.03% 146.66 -3.61% 6.57 -0.15% 36.24 -5.65%
1955 51.282 0.490% 19.49 7.53% 26.93 1.32% 138.19 -5.78% 6.81 3.65% 34.95 -3.56%
1956 51.533 0.489% 20.96 7.54% 27.04 0.41% 129.03 -6.63% 7.36 8.08% 35.1 0.43%
1957 51.785 0.489% 22.11 5.49% 27.01 -0.11% 122.18 -5.31% 7.64 3.80% 34.55 -1.57%
1958 52.039 0.490% 23.05 4.26% 27.23 0.81% 118.14 -3.31% 8.1 6.02% 35.12 1.65%
1959 52.294 0.490% 24.35 5.65% 27.38 0.55% 112.44 -4.82% 8.57 5.80% 35.21 0.26%
1960 52.55 0.490% 25.97 6.67% 27.73 1.28% 106.76 -5.05% 9.14 6.65% 35.2 -0.03%
1961 52.807 0.489% 27.41 5.53% 28.25 1.88% 103.06 -3.47% 10.31 12.80% 37.6 6.82%
1962 53.111 0.576% 28.71 4.73% 28.67 1.49% 99.87 -3.10% 11 6.69% 38.31 1.89%
1963 53.417 0.576% 30.41 5.94% 29.85 4.12% 98.15 -1.72% 11.65 5.91% 38.31 0.00%
1964 53.725 0.577% 33.23 9.27% 30.23 1.27% 90.97 -7.32% 12.74 9.36% 38.35 0.10%
1965 54.034 0.575% 35.89 8.00% 30.44 0.69% 84.82 -6.76% 14.12 10.83% 39.35 2.61%
1966 54.345 0.576% 38.19 6.41% 31.34 2.96% 82.07 -3.24% 15.29 8.29% 40.04 1.75%
1967 54.658 0.576% 40.28 5.49% 31.99 2.07% 79.41 -3.24% 17.49 14.39% 43.43 8.47%
1968 54.973 0.576% 43.65 8.35% 34.19 6.88% 78.33 -1.36% 19.09 9.15% 43.73 0.69%
1969 55.289 0.575% 47.02 7.72% 33.98 -0.61% 72.27 -7.74% 19.79 3.67% 42.08 -3.77%
1970 55.608 0.577% 51.70 9.95% 33.08 -2.65% 63.99 -11.46% 21.6 9.15% 41.77 -0.74%
1971 55.928 0.575% 57.67 11.55% 33.44 1.09% 57.99 -9.38% 24.24 12.22% 42.03 0.62%
1972 55.97 0.075% 64.62 12.07% 35.84 7.18% 55.46 -4.36% 26.39 8.87% 40.84 -2.83%
1973 56.013 0.077% 74.54 15.34% 36.88 2.90% 49.48 -10.78% 30.55 15.76% 40.98 0.34%
1974 56.055 0.075% 84.52 13.40% 40.46 9.71% 47.87 -3.25% 39.22 28.38% 46.4 13.23%
1975 56.097 0.075% 106.72 26.26% 46.4 14.68% 43.48 -9.17% 51.52 31.36% 48.28 4.05%
1976 56.14 0.077% 126.29 18.34% 56.59 21.96% 44.81 3.06% 58.46 13.47% 46.3 -4.10%
1977 56.182 0.075% 146.98 16.38% 67.17 18.70% 45.7 1.99% 61.87 5.83% 42.09 -9.09%
1978 56.225 0.077% 169.33 15.21% 79.18 17.88% 46.76 2.32% 71.95 16.29% 42.49 0.95%
1979 56.267 0.075% 199.22 17.65% 86.88 9.72% 43.61 -6.74% 85.17 18.37% 42.75 0.61%
1980 56.31 0.076% 233.20 17.06% 98.2 13.03% 42.11 -3.44% 103.86 21.94% 44.54 4.19%
1981 56.358 0.085% 256.31 9.91% 113.8 15.89% 44.4 5.44% 116.06 11.75% 45.29 1.68%
1982 56.465 0.190% 281.03 9.65% 125.2 10.02% 44.55 0.34% 128.04 10.32% 45.56 0.60%
1983 56.572 0.189% 307.21 9.32% 132.5 5.83% 43.13 -3.19% 132.7 3.64% 43.2 -5.18%
1984 56.68 0.191% 329.89 7.38% 143.8 8.53% 43.59 1.07% 140.5 5.88% 42.59 -1.41%
1985 56.788 0.191% 361.80 9.67% 157.2 9.32% 43.45 -0.32% 150.9 7.40% 41.71 -2.07%
1986 56.896 0.190% 389.14 7.56% 162.7 3.50% 41.81 -3.77% 158.6 5.10% 40.76 -2.28%
1987 57.004 0.190% 428.72 10.17% 167.8 3.13% 39.14 -6.39% 164.6 3.78% 38.4 -5.79%
1988 57.112 0.189% 478.56 11.63% 167.4 -0.24% 34.98 -10.63% 173.6 5.47% 36.28 -5.52%
1989 57.221 0.191% 525.26 9.76% 153.9 -8.06% 29.3 -16.24% 179.9 3.63% 34.25 -5.60%
1990 57.33 0.190% 570.25 8.57% 152.2 -1.10% 26.69 -8.91% 200.9 11.67% 35.23 2.86%
1991 57.439 0.190% 598.73 4.99% 151.3 -0.59% 25.27 -5.32% 218.2 8.61% 36.45 3.46%
1992 57.604 0.287% 622.10 3.90% 166.1 9.78% 26.7 5.66% 236.2 8.25% 37.97 4.17%
1993 57.77 0.288% 654.18 5.16% 202.6 21.97% 30.97 15.99% 259.73 9.96% 39.7 4.56%
1994 57.936 0.287% 692.93 5.92% 249.8 23.30% 36.05 16.40% 271.54 4.55% 39.18 -1.31%
1995 58.103 0.288% 733.25 5.82% 290 16.09% 39.55 9.71% 289.02 6.44% 39.42 0.61%
1996 58.27 0.287% 781.80 6.62% 322.1 11.07% 41.2 4.17% 304.33 5.30% 38.93 -1.24%
1997 58.438 0.288% 829.95 6.16% 348 8.04% 41.93 1.77% 308.37 1.33% 37.15 -4.57%
1998 58.606 0.287% 879.17 5.93% 352.9 1.41% 40.14 -4.27% 318.43 3.26% 36.22 -2.50%
1999 58.775 0.288% 928.93 5.66% 351.6 -0.37% 37.85 -5.71% 332.65 4.47% 35.81 -1.13%
2000 58.944 0.288% 976.26 5.09% 345.4 -1.76% 35.38 -6.53% 340.8 2.45% 34.91 -2.51%
2001 59.114 0.288% 1021.58 4.64% 312.4 -9.55% 30.58 -13.57% 366.09 7.42% 35.83 2.64%
2002 59.455 0.577% 1075.32 5.26% 315.5 0.99% 29.34 -4.05% 389.07 6.28% 36.18 0.98%
2003 59.799 0.579% 1139.53 5.97% 347.1 10.02% 30.46 3.82% 420.48 8.07% 36.9 1.99%
2004 60.145 0.579% 1202.26 5.51% 382.8 10.29% 31.84 4.53% 455.07 8.23% 37.85 2.57%
2005 60.493 0.579% 1254.44 4.34% 424 10.76% 33.8 6.16% 491.8 8.07% 39.21 3.59%
2006 60.843 0.579% 1328.55 5.91% 463 9.20% 34.85 3.11% 523.51 6.45% 39.4 0.48%
2007 61.194 0.577% 1405.68 5.81% 500 7.99% 35.57 2.07% 549.4 4.95% 39.08 -0.81%
2008 61.548 0.578% 1434.03 2.02% 525 5.00% 36.61 2.92% 582.23 5.98% 40.61 3.92%
2009 61.904 0.578% 1393.81 -2.81% 616.9 17.50% 44.26 20.90% 633.81 8.86% 45.47 11.97%
2010 62.262 0.578% 1458.33 4.63% 759.5 23.12% 52.08 17.67% 673.1 6.20% 46.15 1.50%
2011 62.649 0.622% 1499.09 2.79% 905.3 19.20% 60.39 15.96% 694.2 3.13% 46.31 0.35%
2012 63.067 0.667% 1546.65 3.17% 1104 21.95% 71.38 18.20% 694.39 0.03% 44.89 -3.07%
2013 63.488 0.668% 1575.80 1.88% 1185 7.34% 75.2 5.35% 673.92 -2.95% 42.77 -4.72%
2014 63.912 0.668% 1641.01 4.14% 1258 6.16% 76.66 1.94% 713.97 5.94% 43.51 1.73%
2015 64.338 0.667% 1720.42 4.84% 1355 7.71% 78.76 2.74% 731.36 2.44% 42.51 -2.30%
Page 1 of 5  •  Previous 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
‹ back to topics
www.betfair.com