TOPIC: Who is the real leader of the Labour Party ?

I see Brother (have you seen my razor) McCluskey is re-enforcing his position, good old left wing politics is fit and well !!

"The leader of Britain’s biggest trade union has vowed to defend Jeremy Corbyn against an attempted “coup” by Labour MPs, as the party’s divisions over Syria air strikes deepened.

Len McCluskey, the general secretary of Unite, warned that the entire union movement and the broader party membership would strongly “resist” pro-war Labour MPs seeking to force through a change of leadership."

I wonder who is going to get the ' Horses Head ' treatment....

The British Government has borrowed almost all of the money that is available for the period to 5 April. We are in danger of being sued for Human Rights Crimes because we supply arms to the Saudis who are cluster bombing Yemen. Cameron and Blair have been decried for being war criminals. We owe over 400% of GDP which is the greatest of any developed country anywhere in the world. We have the deepest austerity cuts planned in recent history. We have supported an action in Syria that has killed nearly half a million people. We are fucked on every level, financially and morally. Somehow petty squabbling in the Labour Party doesn't seem that important. Still at least our Prime Minister has a plane

Tom Watson - probably made official next year.

That reminds me Diane Abbott is on Question Time on Thursday. She irritates me no end.

I'll be tuning in though just to see her making the usual fool of herself.

Red Len

Markovitch wrote: Is that you Jeremy?

Markovitch wrote:
We haven't done anything in Syria though apart from mouth off, this is what this motion's about isn't it?

So what did they spend 80 million pounds on? That is the spend for the last 2 years in Syria

Refuelling is one of the RAF's tasks in Syria, I think we're also flying drones and reconnaissance missions.

Markovitch wrote:
In think you will find the National Debt is around 80% of GDP...............

www.cnbc.com/2012/03/27/The-Worlds-Bigge...ations.html?slide=20
External debt 451% og GDP We are number 2
Here is wiki, slightly older figures, only 406%
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt

Markovitch wrote:
That's just one side of the equation though as lots of govts/people/companies in other countries owe british companies/people money too.

It's a bit like saying someone with a mortgage is worse off than a homeless man kipping on a park bench with no debts. The bank lends money to the first guy because they're likely to get it back.


The NIIP is what tells you if a country has more debts than assets, we don't look too bad then

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_debtor_nat..._position_per_capita

Again (as has previously been pointed out to you) , you are using the WRONG DAM FIGURES!.

External debt is not the NATIONAL DEBT, go wiki PUBLIC DEBT for the right numbers. (Answer is ~84% GDP)




Whoever the leader is, long may they continue. They're doing a grand job of keeping the disastrous feckwits out for a long time to come.

Pointed out to me only by you in your ignorance. OR SHOULD I USE CAPITALS TO SHOW I UNDERSTAND. Being right is more persuasive than being loud. And its damn to correct your English while we are about it.
National Debt is not the most used comparison of the indebtedness of Governments because it is denominated in pounds (in Britain). If the Government wants to redeem debt they can just print money- as opposed to Europe or the US. If we use external debt it is a better measure because it is debt owed in foreign currencies, printing money will reduce the pound exchange rate (Irving fisher if that means anything to you) so the debt remains constant. It does include private debt as well but in the case of Britain most of this debt is in the form of invested cash so it will reduce the amount of money in the money supply meaning that if withdrawn the Government has to print money (or generate more income) and release through the discount system to maintain liquidity in the banking system. In addition to that half of the capital of banks operating in London is owned by the British Government so this off balance sheet debt is owed by the Government anyway

The guy above is right that it doesn't include foreign held assets and because of the disproportionate size of the banking industry in Britain our debt figures will appear much worse so he has a much stronger argument. However that assumes that those assets will be recovered and have the recovery values shown, a situation that has not been proven to be completely accurate in the past.
The analogy about the mortgage isn't valid because the assumption is that living in a house has a value in addition to the financial values. Putting money in a bank deposit doesn't give you any benefits other than having money in a bank deposit.

Which ever choice of indicator you make i haven't seen any that indicate that Osborne is an even vaguely competent Chancellor If you don't like Corbyn that is your choice, but delaying Trident/ not bombing Syria will save 100bn, a 100bn which he can spend on hospitals, schools, fire stations whatever. Whatever it is it will be in Britain so we will get the benefit directly or indirectly unlike Trident where 80bn goes direct to the US

Just out of interest, why 'P' more money away on the NHS, it is certainly not money that is the issue. If the Government paid for every person in the UK (65m) to join BUPA it would cut the NHS costs by half...............

All of my life, the issue of Junior Doctors working over 100 hours a week has been an issue, why ?????

What a nutter.

Sticks and stones.............

thesilentone wrote: ... may break your bones but the NHS will always fix you

A feckin shambles of a party, Arise Sir Nigel banish Labour to the wilderness. By the way did you see Corbyns face when Hillary Benn gave his rousing speech to Parlument, It was like a slapped arse....

Would all you Tory apologists rather we had a one-party state?

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Aye, run by the tory paymasters, Murdoch, the bankers and other large corporations.

To turn thesilentone's question on it's head, who is the real leader of the conservative party? After all "he who pays the piper calls the tune".

At a time when Unions fought for the working man, expectations were to fully support your Union and it's leaders. Now, the Unions don't give a flying figg about the working Man, they are self promoting, greedy fat Republicans.

They rail-roaded Corbyn's position, now you see the consequences, everything we were warned about.

If you want to sort out the splits in Labour, start with the Union Paymasters.........They are worse than the Bankers !!

thesilentone wrote:
They're not. In fact they're not within a million miles. If what those top level bankers had done had been done by anybody else in the country, yes even union leaders, they would be in jail. I have a client who was forced into an interest rate swap deal and robbed of over half a million pounds, and he's still had none of it back. That is very small beer compared with most of what the bankers did, and got away with. Union leaders are nothing like that.

People in business are surrounded by advice and support, however when you are desperate you make the wrong decisions. The bankers bonus culture was a disgrace, however they are plenty who have known and supported it for decades. The rate fixing had been going on since the 80's, bankers pay and bonuses got past audits and committees, they all had there nose in the trough !!

The Republicans who run our Unions, don't even like our Country !!!

Whilst digging that hole thesilentone, have you come across that tube line yet?

thesilentone wrote: So who has known about it, and supported it? The Tories?
thesilentone wrote: Who had their noses in the trough? The Tories?
thesilentone wrote: Is that what you really think? Or is it just that they don't like the way our country is run? Perhaps they feel that the working people of this country shouldn't be trampled on by people like Cameron and Osbourne (and the bankers).

When the Wa..k.g Bankers Gravy Train got de-railed. it wasn't just them who fell off. A whole industry turned into a blame culture.

What I am saying, is that all those who were part of that ' excess trough ' supply chain and were quite happy feeding with the rest, are equally to blame.

What supply chain?

Moorlad wrote:
One small example would be PFI Contracts, and at that time the all round greedy attitude. This get rich quick approach has burdened us all with a lifelong debt round our necks while every Bank,Funding Provider, Contract Manager, Lawyer, Due Diligence Company, Construction Company, Service Provider, Accountant, Auditor, involved is those contracts and anyone else who could get near the trough bled them for every penny they could get.

The ' who cares, the taxpayer is paying ' approach.

That is what I mean by supply chain...........

So you mean the owners of big business? The Tories in other words. Thanks for the clarification.

Moorlad wrote:
I suppose, many on the Left called him a cloned Tory.............I think the total is over half a billion !! Had it been private enterprise, it would probably have cost around £35m

Carlisle's new hospital was a long time coming.
Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, five lots of plans were shredded.
Then, in 2000, the then Prime Minister Tony Blair finally opened Cumberland Infirmary to sighs of relief from many in the city.
It drew together services which had been offered out of three buildings - one of them Victorian - into one modern, newly-equipped hospital.
Local MP Eric Martlew said in an ideal world it would have been built with public money but that was not an option at the time.
Instead, the government agreed Carlisle would be a suitable candidate for the Private Finance Initiative (PFI).
As part of the first wave of privately-funded public projects, Health Management Carlisle plc built and financed the £67m hospital.

In that first year, the trust paid back £12.4m, government figures show.
Today, with inflation and the structure of the deal, that bill is now at just over £18m (some 8% of the current £220m annual turnover).
By the end of the 30-year contract, in 2029/30, the final annual bill is expected to exceed £25m.
This means over 30 years, the trust will have made total payments of £587m.
Each payment includes the repayment of capital, interest on the loan, and services such as maintenance and updating equipment.
Cumberland Infirmary became the first hospital built under PFI to open its doors, and was quickly held up as an example of the advantages - and disadvantages - of private sector involvement in the public sector.
Early on, the press reported how it was beset with teething problems from too few beds and crowded wards, to poor hygiene standards.
And hospital staff soon pointed the finger of blame at the PFI - under the agreement with the private company, there were constraints on making any structural changes while any internal changes cost a lot of money to carry out.
Now, the government has identified 22 NHS trusts whose PFI contracts are said to be putting them at financial risk.
Among them is the North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust, which oversees Cumberland Infirmary, currently valued at just under £67m.
The trust, however, does not recognise itself as one in risk of collapse.
It says it is in talks with the Department of Health over PFI schemes and insists it has balanced its books in recent years.
Alistair Mulvey, the trust's finance director and deputy chief executive, said the hospital has gone from "strength to strength" over the last decade, with facilities and equipment maintained and kept up-to-date through PFI.
He added: "The trust benefits from a great relationship with its PFI partner and continue to work closely together to keep the facilities in the best condition possible and also to make sure that the health service receives the best value for money."

Where is the money for that all going? Are those bloody union leaders all lining their pockets with it? Maybe it's the lenders (bankers, or Tories if you like) who will be making cash out of all of that.

Your example also pretty much scuppers your view that the whole of the NHS would be better run privately by the government paying BUPA to run everything doesn't it. It also clears up once and for all that health services should never have input from the greedy people in the private sector that you so love.

Anyway, what does that have to do with who leads the Labour party? That was a policy that was hijacked by some Tory paymasters, so what does it prove?

Aah, now you find it was not those greedy, rich Tory's but your Loony Left wing buddies that were feeding in the trough, you want to move the subject in a totally different direction.

A bit predictable Moorland

You do the maths on the cost of Private v NHS. We are around 65.0m people, Private medical insurance would cost around £400-500 per person/year.(around £35bn) the NHS costs £95.0bn + goodness knows how much extra each year as the Managed by Money system runs out of cash.

If we went private a lot of Union reps would be looking for a job in the private sector on £60k + 50 days holiday (they would need extra after missing out on the bucoup strike days)

Clown. Private companies use NHS facilities and personnel, there are no doubt problems in the public sector, but a health service run for profit alone would be an absolute disaster.

Stop biting, Moorlad.

Just bask happy in the knowledge that rivets like this will never be in a position to implement their barmpot ideas. Far too thick to get anywhere near a meaningful position of any sort.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

The Tories are in it for themselves. Labour are in it for themselves. At least the Tories don't pretend to be the party of the 'working man', or at least they never used to. How many on either front bench have ever actually worked? Very few is the answer.

A private run NHS would be a disaster in my view, However looking at the idea itself doesn't make you the anti-christ that some like to portray. Canada has a free system based on private health insurance. As long as its free at the point of care that's what matters, although ultimately i don't think having private companies involved is a good idea at all. But to say you shouldn't even look at it is ignorant, The waste that goes on in the NHS is horrific. They could learn from private secor efficiencies without the private sector involvement and greed.

Perspective is sometimes needed. Whilst people bang on about Tory privatisation, it was actually Labour who introduced the limited privatisation we now have in the NHS. PFI is a complete shambles and that was always obvious from that start. Gordon Brown went down that route for his own personal political gain and that was a disgrace. PFI was tiny under the Tories, attacked by Labour as backdoor privatisation, and then put into overdrive when Labour came to power in 1997 to avoid putting debt on the balance sheet. Putting politics over the national good. Great work from Labour. Forgive me for not trusting them when they now once again point at others and cry privatisation.

I find it interesting that some people hold onto this idea that Labour are any better than the 'rich banker capitalist Tories'. Have these people been living in a cave for the past 20 years or are they just in denial? Heres a bombshell - they are both as bad as each other, none of them has ever had a job, they are both bought and paid for by outside interests and both look after their own political skins rather than doing whats best for the country.

Oldham by election was won by Labour tonight, with am increased majority. But Labour under Corbyn are completely unelectable, they say.

cufcmike wrote:
They didn't it was down from 14k to 10k but was a higher percentage due to a lot lower turnout than in the election.

Blues86 wrote: Stop talking sense... there is no place for that kind of thing on here. Both parties are as bad as each other and both have been massively culpable for the crisis in the NHS and the banking crisis. The problem on this messageboard is that people support political parties like they support football teams... they will only ever vote for one party, regardless of how utterly sh1t they are! People generalise that the Tories are to blame for the state of the Health service but they reality is, as you suggest above, that the rot set in under a Labour government who introduced wholesale PFI into the NHS. People also repeatedly link greedy bankers and their dodgy practices to the Tories, when in reality the worst cases occurred during Labour's tenure, under regulations and controls set out by Labour. It is up to the government of the day to set out what is and isn't acceptable practice for banking... Labour had plenty of time to prevent the dodgy banking practices that are often mentioned... this ultimately led to the credit crunch and the financial crisis. Now I'm not suggesting that the Tories are any better.... some of the privatization under Thatcher and Major was an absolute joke, and for me they are to blame for a fair number of the major problems in our society now. Let's cut the crap about the Tories being wholly responsible for the fall of the NHS and the greedy bankers shafting people though... as it just isn't true, no matter how much you want it to be. Both parties are culpable.

A reasonable debate on this board is difficult at times, that is why there are so few regular posters.

Unfortunately there are those loser's (and you know who you are) who cannot express a balanced view without using personal insults. This is due to a lack of education and a bigoted viewpoint that they are always right.

These stereotypes will drive people away from this board...........Unfortunately for them, not me though !!

thesilentone wrote:
Lack of education.

Moorlad wrote:
Yes lack of education....

To turn thesilentone's question on it's head, who is the real leader of the conservative party? After all "he who pays the piper calls the tune".

Northumbrian wrote:
Could it be argued that Labour made a monumental balls up whilst trying to right the wrongs of the Thatcher/Major governments in trying to rescue the totally rundown NHS that was left to them?

thesilentone wrote:
Personal insults!!! Who was it who called Moorlad a jameater?. I bet he didnt sleep well that night.

thesilentone wrote:
Did you mean to ask this question on your other account? Proof you're just a sad troll.

Irony silentone, never expected you to understand.

But I did know you'd be likely to be scouring my posts for a mistake.

You'll note I wasn't accusing anybody of lacking education when I made that error.

Dancingbear wrote:
Aren't jameaters from Wukki't'n?

Moorlad wrote:
Although at times you stoop to prefer insults when your on the ropes, the irony is, if you had read the post and thought for minute, you may have seen there was no spelling mistake !!

thesilentone wrote:
I don't believe I mentioned anything about a spelling mistake.

Dancingbear wrote:

Jam eater
Initially a term of abuse, because some local miners were too poor to put meat in their sandwiches.

Now a term of solidarity for the people of West Cumbria who struggled successfully through hard times, especially the inhabitants of White'evan (Whitehaven) and Wukitn (Workington).
Are you a jam eater? (West Cumbrian)
Me marra fray Merypoort sa jam eater too! Ahreet?
Jam eaters n prood of it!