Corbyn offers to do a televised debate with Cameron

[unbeliever]

The party will only have outlived its usefulness when poverty is no more, and everyone has equal opportunity. Certainly, Labour has done an awful lot to diminish poverty over the years, but there is still some way to go.

 

As for equal opportunities; that seems to be going backwards.

 

 

Other people and parties pursue these goals, and always have. They simply pursue them by other means.

The Labour means of achieving them is discredited and far more likely to damage them.

Labour will just make everybody poor.

Do you really want to achieve equality by driving the rich out of the country? How will we replace their tax revenue?

Will you really consider "poverty" eliminated if everybody is equally poor?

 

Look to Korea. Socialist north, capitalist south. The GDP per capita in the DPRK is one twentieth of that in the ROK. The poorest in the south are better off than the average in the north.

What price are you willing to pay for this equality and the elimination of "relative" poverty? Surely what matters is the standard of living of the poorest in absolute terms.

[banjodeano]

Other people and parties pursue these goals, and always have. They simply pursue them by other means.

The Labour means of achieving them is discredited and far more likely to damage them.

Labour will just make everybody poor.

Do you really want to achieve equality by driving the rich out of the country? How will we replace their tax revenue?

Will you really consider "poverty" eliminated if everybody is equally poor?

 

Look to Korea. Socialist north, capitalist south. The GDP per capita in the DPRK is one twentieth of that in the ROK. The poorest in the south are better off than the average in the north.

What price are you willing to pay for this equality and the elimination of "relative" poverty? Surely what matters is the standard of living of the poorest in absolute terms.

Crikey yes....we cant have everybody poor, we can only have the poor, poor...we definitely need the rich and poor below, equality wouldnt be fair

 

The 10p tax for instance.

You are bang on about equal opportunities going backwards with Corbyn's sexist, misogynist, racist gang.

Eric...do you actually think about what you post.?? sometimes your posts are completely barking mad, sometimes they are spot on, but this post falls into the barking mad category my friend.

To call Corbyn sexist and racist is just plain stupid, hasnt he made sure that half of the positions in his cabinet were occupied by women, and wasnt he striving in his manifesto to get equal pay for women, of course the media clutched at straws and accused him of giving them lower positions than men, well, they had to pull him down somehow didnt they? but on the whole he was striving for more equality for women, especially in the work place...

As for Racism....come on mate, you know thats just crazy talk...

Have a good New Year mate..!

 

---------- Post added 31-12-2015 at 09:54 ----------

 

Other people and parties pursue these goals, and always have. They simply pursue them by other means.

The Labour means of achieving them is discredited and far more likely to damage them.

Labour will just make everybody poor.

Do you really want to achieve equality by driving the rich out of the country? How will we replace their tax revenue?

Will you really consider "poverty" eliminated if everybody is equally poor?

 

Look to Korea. Socialist north, capitalist south. The GDP per capita in the DPRK is one twentieth of that in the ROK. The poorest in the south are better off than the average in the north.

What price are you willing to pay for this equality and the elimination of "relative" poverty? Surely what matters is the standard of living of the poorest in absolute terms.

Do they actually pay any tax anyway, they all seem to have off shore tax accounts anyway....The Daily Mail keep slagging Corbyn off for being unpatriotic.....but they have their head office in Bermuda to avoid paying tax...very patriotic....you couldnt make it up

[Anna B]

The 10p tax for instance.

 

Labour: Tough on poverty, tough on the causes of poverty, and if you don't like being dependant on a Labour controlled state, tough.

 

 

 

You are bang on about equal opportunities going backwards with Corbyn's sexist, mysoggnist, racist gang.

 

10p tax? Wow....

 

Let's not forget Labour created the NHS, welfare state, Trade Unions, free education to University level, and much, much more. I doubt there's a family in this country who don't have to thank Labour for something.

[unbeliever]

Crikey yes....we cant have everybody poor, we can only have the poor, poor...we definitely need the rich and poor below, equality wouldnt be fair

 

Do they actually pay any tax anyway, they all seem to have off shore tax accounts anyway....The Daily Mail keep slagging Corbyn off for being unpatriotic.....but they have their head office in Bermuda to avoid paying tax...very patriotic....you couldnt make it up

 

 

They pays lots of tax. Avoidance reduces it a little, which I know is annoying, but you wouldn't like to see the cuts in public spending arising from their departure.

I have little time for the DM, so you knock yourself out. I'm perfectly happy to concede that the DM are idiots as well as Corbyn.

 

It's quite clear from your post that you do actually want everybody to be poorer than the poorest are now. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

---------- Post added 31-12-2015 at 10:45 ----------

 

10p tax? Wow....

 

Let's not forget Labour created the NHS, welfare state, Trade Unions, free education to University level, and much, much more. I doubt there's a family in this country who don't have to thank Labour for something.

 

Sure. Labour did a lot of good with the NHS and welfare in 1948. University education (for the ~5% who qualified, most of them middle class) was paid for out of taxation partly paid by the working poor, not so sure about that one.

 

Everybody involved in that process is long dead. The modern Labour party is the political wing of the public sector unions and no longer represents the working poor. Am I supposed to overlook that and bestow on them the gratitude I feel toward their long dead predecessors because they use the same party name?

 

I do not want the entire country run for the benefit of those who work for the government. And I work for the government.

[Eric Arthur]

10p tax? Wow....

You have a very uncaring attitude about how rotten Labour's 10p tax was for hard working low earners.

 

Let's not forget Labour created the NHS, welfare state, Trade Unions, free education to University level, and much, much more. I doubt there's a family in this country who don't have to thank Labour for something.

 

Of course Labour have done some good things over the last century, only an idiot thinks that political parties are so binary, mind you there are a lot of idiots if this forum is representative of the general population. Who's to say that the Conservatives or Liberals wouldn't have done exactly the same?

 

For instance, you need to thank the Conservatives and the Lib Dems for reducing child poverty recently. The number of children living in poverty has only come DOWN in the last 5 years, whereas, it went UP during Labour's recent boom years.

 

Don't get carried away with the idea that poverty can be eliminated though, the definition is mathematics not morals.

[foxy lady]

10p tax? Wow....

 

Let's not forget Labour created the NHS, welfare state, Trade Unions, free education to University level, and much, much more. I doubt there's a family in this country who don't have to thank Labour for something.

 

Actually if you want to be pedantic, the National Government proposed & debated the NHS during the war. It was left up to the first elected government after it to implement what had been proposed. Labour were certainly responsible for introducing tuition fees. I made it to university at exactly the right time to get landed with them.

Neither did the Labour Party create trade unions.The trade unions created the Labour Party, which is hardly the same thing.

Edited December 31, 2015 by foxy lady

[A.B.Yaffle]

I believe electing Corbyn as leader was a massive mistake for Labour. True, a lot of socialists don't like "Tory Lite" as they call the more electable sections of Labour. However, is it better to have this spiteful government who hate the poor or an electable opposition who will have to appeal to the middle ground in order to make the poor somewhat better off? If Corbyn is still leader at the next General Election then effectively (in my opinion) the Labour Party will be responsible for whatever even more extreme policies Osborne or Johnson will impose on the poor.

 

I do agree with Corbyn on some issues, although he will keep Labour out of power for a generation if he continues as leader.

 

One thing that I think he is strong on is his admission that he will not order the killing of thousands or millions of civilians by dropping a nuclear bomb.

True, public opinion does seem to be in favour of using these horrendous weapons of mass torture, but is that due to the media? How can we criticise countries for using weapons of mass destruction when our leaders are admitting that they would do the same?

[Jeffrey Shaw]

How can we criticise countries for using weapons of mass destruction when our leaders are admitting that they would do the same?

But there aren't "countries"- only the USA- that ever used nuclear weapons.

And the world's a lot safer than had there been no such weapons.

How would Mr Corbyn defend the UK: by submitting a firmly-worded UN resolution?!

[banjodeano]

But there aren't "countries"- only the USA- that ever used nuclear weapons.

And the world's a lot safer than had there been no such weapons.

How would Mr Corbyn defend the UK: by submitting a firmly-worded UN resolution?!

 

Did Margaret's nuclear weapons act as a deterrent when the Argentinians invaded the Falklands?

[Eric Arthur]

Did Margaret's nuclear weapons act as a deterrent when the Argentinians invaded the Falklands?

 

They aren't supposed to stop ALL conflicts.

 

They are pricipally designed to do two things, to stop other nations walking into the UK, and stop the kind of wars where tens of thousands of people die in a day.

 

The nuclear deterrant has a 100% success rate in both.

 

 

Incidentally, the UK's defence investment meant that we had the forces to kick Argentina out of UK territory on the other side of the planet, whereas Argentina still hasn't recovered from a 1982 skirmish on its doorstep.