O/T Corbyn will eclipse Rotherham's record losing streak

[a123]

Give it a rest Wan FFS! What total toss.

Wow such reasoned debate. At least he can make a point without being abusive.

[gm_gm]

Just seen JCs performance on Andrew Marr and he was hopeless as usual, and avoided every question asked even the really simple ones. He basically said he would down arms and wAve a white flag anytime some terrorist organisation thtreatens.

His weaknesses were easily exposed

[KerrAvon]

Held to account = sufficient discomfort to dissuade a repeat scenario. Kept in post and no further payout/pension/reward until the bank has recovered sufficiently to pay the taxpayer back in full with interest - however long that takes. No payback = no reward. My - and most businesses - are not rescued if/when the fail, therefore we take carefully considered risks, rather than 'gung-ho' approaches.

Still not fully convinced that adequate measures are in place to avoid a repeat of this dreadful scenario again. One has to admire Hammond's timing of burying this bad news when all eyes are turned the other way towards the snap election.

The responses of governments around the world to what happened in 2008 have generally been aimed at limiting damage and contagion should a similar event occur rather than at preventing one. That’s why banks have generally been required to hold much higher reserves and to separate their retail and investment/commercial banking operations. The reason for that is simple, to be dissuaded from taking a risky course of action, a bank would have to appreciate that it was risky. An analysis of what happened in 2008 shows that virtually no one saw the risk created by the large scale trading of mortgage backed securities and their derivatives. Not the bankers, not the regulators and not the credit rating agencies. Rather than being gung-ho investments, mortgage backed securities were seen as being low risk and as safe as houses.

Hammond was saying that if the government's holding in RBS is sold for less than it cost to acquire, the public purse will make a loss. That's neither good nor bad news - it's the bleeding obvious. The only surprise is that his comments were reported at all.

[KerrAvon]

You and I know that we have a natural media bias in the U.K.. I agree, that simple factual reporting provides to space for folk to shine or shoot themselves in the foot. The danger of this bias is that it can backfire, and if people get sufficiently tired of it, you end up with populist politics rather than thoughtful politics. This is the root of my concern. Parties can get into power without slagging others off - it is the politics of the playground that I don't like, and try to see through this to form my own opinions. However comforting is may be, so many things in life are seldom 2 dimensional.

I don’t know that there is a media bias in the UK. I know that there is a whole range of biases. We are very fortunate that is the case as countries where there is only a single bias have state controlled media.

Media bias is unavoidable. It’s entirely natural that newspaper proprietors, editors and journalists will bring some of their own personal views into what is published and broadcast. Sometimes it will be deliberate, in other cases inadvertent.

Where the left get it wrong is in suggesting that media bias is uniquely pro-right or in any way particularly damaging. I know that if I pick up a copy of the Daily Telegraph or The Sun, I will get a right wing slant to what I read. I also know that if I pick up The Mirror or The Guardian, I will get a left wing editorial stance. I recall The Guardian trying to explain away the Virgin Traingate deception, in a ridiculous and frankly, embarrassing piece. The reality of the situation, however, is that people tend to get their news from sources that match their political standpoint rather than being influenced by them. I don’t think may Labour supporters will be regular Daily Mail readers or that the Tory right will be fans of The Guardian.

I appreciate that I risk getting shot at for saying this, but the fact that both the left and right claim that the BBC is biased against them tells me that they probably at least try to be neutral.

I admire your belief in thoughtful politics, but I can’t share it. Democracy by definition means striving for the populist position. As for people being slagged off, look no further than Amanda_Hugg_n_Kiss’s post. Clearly some people cannot tolerate others expressing views that don’t accord with their own.

[KerrAvon]

Give it a rest Wan FFS! What total toss.

This is a message board, not an echo chamber. If you go on a message board, you will be exposed to views that don't accord with yours. I'm sorry for having to explain that to you, but it appears to be necessary.

[KerrAvon]

Just seen JCs performance on Andrew Marr and he was hopeless as usual, and avoided every question asked even the really simple ones. He basically said he would down arms and wAve a white flag anytime some terrorist organisation thtreatens.

His weaknesses were easily exposed

I saw a bit of it. Voters for whom the future (or lack of future) of Trident is important now don't have a clue what the Labour position is.

[sawmiller]

I don’t know that there is a media bias in the UK. I know that there is a whole range of biases. We are very fortunate that is the case as countries where there is only a single bias have state controlled media.

Media bias is unavoidable. It’s entirely natural that newspaper proprietors, editors and journalists will bring some of their own personal views into what is published and broadcast. Sometimes it will be deliberate, in other cases inadvertent.

Where the left get it wrong is in suggesting that media bias is uniquely pro-right or in any way particularly damaging. I know that if I pick up a copy of the Daily Telegraph or The Sun, I will get a right wing slant to what I read. I also know that if I pick up The Mirror or The Guardian, I will get a left wing editorial stance. I recall The Guardian trying to explain away the Virgin Traingate deception, in a ridiculous and frankly, embarrassing piece. The reality of the situation, however, is that people tend to get their news from sources that match their political standpoint rather than being influenced by them. I don’t think may Labour supporters will be regular Daily Mail readers or that the Tory right will be fans of The Guardian.

I appreciate that I risk getting shot at for saying this, but the fact that both the left and right claim that the BBC is biased against them tells me that they probably at least try to be neutral.

I admire your belief in thoughtful politics, but I don't fully share it. Democracy by definition means striving for the populist position. As for people being slagged off, look no further than Amanda_Hugg_n_Kiss’s post. Clearly some people cannot tolerate others expressing views that don’t accord with their own.

I acknowledge your view of democracy, but, as is the case with democracy, free thought and speech, it is just that, a valid view, but not one I wholly concord with. Some of it is defined to suit beliefs and values, some of it is down to individual interpretation. Invariably, it is always flawed because of something you mentioned in a previous post which is valid - human nature and personal agendas.

[Amanda_Hugg_n_Kiss]

Wow such reasoned debate. At least he can make a point without being abusive.

It was a poor attempt of humour and not abuse, but if you see that as abuse that's up to you. He chose his username. Would have thought on this board where so much vile is spewed at our players and manager etc... folk wouldn't be so touchy, never mind it's not my problem.

This is a message board, not an echo chamber. If you go on a message board, you will be exposed to views that don't accord with yours. I'm sorry for having to explain that to you, but it appears to be necessary.

Eh?? Well obviously. I was giving my opinion, so your comments right back at you. It's a message board so obviously I have no choice but to tolerate it, nothing I say on here can stop anyone doing anything, if it does that's your problem.

Id already got what I wanted from the discussion, folk cherry picking points, avoiding key points made and no one providing evidence that Corbyn is far left (they can't of course because he isn't). Any intelligent person reading this thread can see all that, so there's no point wasting much more time, so just a short line giving my opinion that his further comments were a load of toss. But then got claptrap thrown at me so felt like commenting further.

[millmoormagic]

There is nothing inherently Socialist about the NHS, the welfare state, council housing, workers’ rights, health or safety at work.

Socialism is concerned about worker ownership of the means of production and the redistribution of wealth. And history shows that it doesn’t’ work. It merely creates poverty for all. Ask the people of Eastern Europe who risked imprisonment, torture and death to end the ‘Worker’s Paradises’ in which they lived after WW2. Ask the people of Venezuela who live in a country with vast oil reserves, but have to queue to try to get even the most basic of provisions.

The problem with Socialism is that it ignores human nature and, in particular, the fact that people quite like to keep the fruits of their labour.

The reference to council housing is telling; just as in their apparent dislike of private education it demonstrates Old Labour ‘s instinctive dislike of aspiration - of the desire of people to improve their lot in life. Thatcher gave people the right to buy and Old Labour opposed it.

As for government support for the banks in 2007/08, I wonder how the sums spent compare with those spent shoring up lame duck nationalised industries in the past?

RBS was at one time the largest bank in the world on some measures. Allowing it to fold would have created a domino effect that would have created financial turmoil on a scale that the world has never seen. We would have risked much trade being reduced to being based on barter, just as it is now in the Socialist Paradise of Venezuela.

To be fair i thnk you're taking the word 'socialism' too literally in this case, in the UK, we're talking about democratic socialism, a system that aspires to look after all in society. Socialism in it's true form would mean the things you've pointed out, worker ownership etc, but that's quite simply not what is being proposed is it?

If the foundation of the NHS isn't a socialist principle then i cannot see where you're coming from, free health care and point of use, i can't think of a more socialist principle, same goes for the other points.

I don't think anyone should dislike aspiration, for what it's worth, we all want the best for ourselves ultimately surely.

As for the government bailing the banks, i'd love to know the comparison, a socialist principle of taking government money to give to private company's, for them to cream off into tax havens in foreign country's, great!

As for RBS and financial turmoil, i think you'll find there's been plent yof financial turmoil since 2007/8, most of it created by the banks we bailed out, that's ok though, because they're a massive corporation.

[PeteWaller]

I think Tuesday follows Monday