Jeremy Corbyn's Labour

[Napster]

Ashcroft comes out worst. But who was the source? My money's on Bojo.

 

[londonblue]

Ashcroft comes out worst. But who was the source? My money's on Bojo.

Who says the source has to be vindictive? It could easily have been during an evening reminiscing about Uni days, where someone had too much to drink. Even if that was the case, Bojo would still be right up their on the list of candidates.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I definitely take the point on a democratic argument to popular policies, although it doesn't necessarily help when hard decisions need to be taken, but I'm not swayed by any of the other arguments.

Inaction on the part of other industrialised nations doesn't prove that it's a good or bad idea, any more than action does - only the results of the action/inaction. Your view on your local networks may be right (may be not) but it's anecdotal. Apart from that, you're just restating what you said before/above.

Nor should Hillary Benn's argument be read as fact - it's just his opinion.

I'd still be more interested in seeing facts, but we're already way off topic.

If it's evidence based research you want check here:-

Note that DOR wern't even allowed to bid for the franchise this year yet foreign competitors were.


http://actionforrail.wpengine.com/the-attack-on-our-railways/keep-east-coast-public/



(Mods.please transfer this to the Network Rail privatisation thread).

 

[C C Csiders]

Really?

If it's true and that becomes verified, then his career as a politician will be over. He'll have no international credibility and he'll be a laughing stock.
Lord Ashcroft might be a bitter grump, but he's not an idiot.

Beef stock is red; chicken stock yellow; and laughing stock pink (or is that blue and white stripes)?

 

[Rob Noxious]

I'm loving Jezza's approach to PMQT. All being well, it'll stop all this hamming up/theatricality that has gone before.

 

[steveo]

Heard an interview with him where he said there should be no cap on benefits. The interview suggested 30,000 and he said no, no caps. According to the left wing Mirror in March the average wage in the UK is around 260000, so this bloke is happy that non working ponces should get more than the average wage.
****ing ridiculous. surely no sane person would agree with him - other than some of our Spanish friends obviously.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Heard an interview with him where he said there should be no cap on benefits. The interview suggested 30,000 and he said no, no caps. According to the left wing Mirror in March the average wage in the UK is around 260000, so this bloke is happy that non working ponces should get more than the average wage.
****ing ridiculous. surely no sane person would agree with him - other than some of our Spanish friends obviously.

Benefits paid directly to claimants have always been paid at a certain level and a cap wouldn't effect that as the level they are paid at are not high. The issue really is housing benefit which is paid to landlords and that is where the excessive costs are. No claimant gets rich on that but landlords do. With Thatcher's right to buy scheme on council housing now being extended to housing association properties (1 house is built for every nine sold under 'right to buy'), affordable housing requirements on new builds being watered down, no cap being put on rent rises, a general lack of house building...it's easy to see that benefits in order to be able to live can easily not enable people to live in an area where they have always lived in a benefits cap that ignores rent rises is an issue.
It's a safety net. A cap 'could' be reasonable if the government had done something about extortionate rents, hadn't overseen a massive rise in zero hours contracts, reduced employers rights so for example you can be kicked out of a job with no come back at anytime in the first two years of employment and even after that have introduced preventative costs for tribunals.

Make housing affordable for everyone and then the cost to the taxpayer of those without work falls to a more reasonable level.

Its as if they have engineered a system where we hate benefit claimants so that we forget that George Osborne fought the EU to prevent a cap on banker's bonuses and that the government are still allowing Starbucks to choose how much tax they pay.

Yes, you can cap benefits by building council houses, but practically difficult to manage that when a chunk of the excessive benefit is paid in excessive rent direct to a landlord. The government have created that cost then blamed the benefit claimant for it.

 

[rigsby]

Heard an interview with him where he said there should be no cap on benefits. The interview suggested 30,000 and he said no, no caps. According to the left wing Mirror in March the average wage in the UK is around 260000, so this bloke is happy that non working ponces should get more than the average wage.
****ing ridiculous. surely no sane person would agree with him - other than some of our Spanish friends obviously.

Don't forget if you receive £30,000 in benefits you would have to earn £50,000 to be on the same level after tax.

If you want eight children or more, all whist on benefits then you should have to move from a trendy part of North London to cheap part of North England. Just like any other worker would.

 

[rigsby]

Benefits paid directly to claimants have always been paid at a certain level and a cap wouldn't effect that as the level they are paid at are not high. The issue really is housing benefit which is paid to landlords and that is where the excessive costs are. No claimant gets rich on that but landlords do. With Thatcher's right to buy scheme on council housing now being extended to housing association properties (1 house is built for every nine sold under 'right to buy'), affordable housing requirements on new builds being watered down, no cap being put on rent rises, a general lack of house building...it's easy to see that benefits in order to be able to live can easily not enable people to live in an area where they have always lived in a benefits cap that ignores rent rises is an issue.
It's a safety net. A cap 'could' be reasonable if the government had done something about extortionate rents, hadn't overseen a massive rise in zero hours contracts, reduced employers rights so for example you can be kicked out of a job with no come back at anytime in the first two years of employment and even after that have introduced preventative costs for tribunals.

Make housing affordable for everyone and then the cost to the taxpayer of those without work falls to a more reasonable level.

Its as if they have engineered a system where we hate benefit claimants so that we forget that George Osborne fought the EU to prevent a cap on banker's bonuses and that the government are still allowing Starbucks to choose how much tax they pay.

Yes, you can cap benefits by building council houses, but practically difficult to manage that when a chunk of the excessive benefit is paid in excessive rent direct to a landlord. The government have created that cost then blamed the benefit claimant for it.

So the government are trying to stop landlords from getting rich, which by the way would help keep rent down for people who are not on benefits. And *** supports the landlords, well done. With out your strong stance on benefits caps and no limits on immigration the public can never have affordable housing and us landlords could never be as rich as bankers.

Once again thanks for your valued support

 

[OldBlueLady]

Saw an interview with him on BBC East yesterday, he's all very good at saying how he wants to do this and that and pay out this and that to the world and its wife, but, as ever, no indication of how Labour would pay for it. Presumably the same way as the last Labour Government did, depleting any reserves!

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Saw an interview with him on BBC East yesterday, he's all very good at saying how he wants to do this and that and pay out this and that to the world and its wife, but, as ever, no indication of how Labour would pay for it. Presumably the same way as the last Labour Government did, depleting any reserves!

Though the Coalition and the current Tory government have been selling off all of the publicly owned businesses at knock down prices, which is depleting any reserves.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

So the government are trying to stop landlords from getting rich, which by the way would help keep rent down for people who are not on benefits. And *** supports the landlords, well done. With out your strong stance on benefits caps and no limits on immigration the public can never have affordable housing and us landlords could never be as rich as bankers.

Once again thanks for your valued support

If you are going to deliberately miss the point of what has been written then it's pointless conversing with you.

Yes, by saying they should cap rents I was clearly looking to increase the profits of landlords (I'm being sarcastic at this point). Litterally what is the point in bothering?

 

[rigsby]

If you are going to deliberately miss the point of what has been written then it's pointless conversing with you.

Yes, by saying they should cap rents I was clearly looking to increase the profits of landlords (I'm being sarcastic at this point). Litterally what is the point in bothering?

Its you who has missed the point. There has always been a cap on Housing benefit. In Southend you can only claim the going rate for a Local three bedroom house if that's what you need. You can top up a rent from your benefits, or like some of my previous tenants from regular work which they of course never declared.

The real **** takers, like Abdul Hamza's family, that cost in excess of £100,000 per year are living in large London houses. These are often owned by another family member and the rent has been set artificially higher.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Its you who has missed the point. There has always been a cap on Housing benefit. In Southend you can only claim the going rate for a Local three bedroom house if that's what you need. You can top up a rent from your benefits, or like some of my previous tenants from regular work which they of course never declared.

The real **** takers, like Abdul Hamza's family, that cost in excess of £100,000 per year are living in large London houses. These are often owned by another family member and the rent has been set artificially higher.

I completely understood your point - your point was to misrepresent and distort what I had written.


You are now making a new point - that rent is capped at market rate. That is the problem - rent at market rate is far too high. The government doing little or nothing to tackle the lack of affordable homes is a travesty. Selling off council and housing association homes just makes the situation worse.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Well, I doubt Corbyn has ****ed a dead pig.

I watched the film 'The Riot Club' last night and I'd say that anyone who has seen it (based around a clique of Etonians at Oxford who bond through debauchery and buying their way out of any consequences) will wonder what else Mr Cameron was required to do to be part of the Bullingdon Club and it's offshoots.

 

[OldBlueLady]

I watched the film 'The Riot Club' last night and I'd say that anyone who has seen it (based around a clique of Etonians at Oxford who bond through debauchery and buying their way out of any consequences) will wonder what else Mr Cameron was required to do to be part of the Bullingdon Club and it's offshoots.

Or Lord Ashcroft, come to that. Bit embarrassing really that someone in his position feels that vindictive.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Or Lord Ashcroft, come to that. Bit embarrassing really that someone in his position feels that vindictive.

Very true and he has very much broken the code of practice by bringing these activities to light.

 

[londonblue]

Or Lord Ashcroft, come to that. Bit embarrassing really that someone in his position feels that vindictive.

Embarrassing for who? If you mean for Lord Ashcroft, I suspect he got over the embarrassment a long time ago, otherwise he wouldn't have written it all down.

 

[OldBlueLady]

Embarrassing for who? If you mean for Lord Ashcroft, I suspect he got over the embarrassment a long time ago, otherwise he wouldn't have written it all down.

Yeah, I do. He might find himself missing a few more friends now as a result, pretty much ostracised by anyone else around that group from that time. Of course, as a very rich man, that's probably not going to worry him too much. Personally, I reckon someone who can grass his own friends up so willingly, on something he also probably took part in, is about as low as you can get.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Yeah, I do. He might find himself missing a few more friends now as a result, pretty much ostracised by anyone else around that group from that time. Of course, as a very rich man, that's probably not going to worry him too much. Personally, I reckon someone who can grass his own friends up so willingly, on something he also probably took part in, is about as low as you can get.

Smashing up restaraunts but getting away with it because daddy is rich is a bit worse don't you think?