bmt Posted 25 August 2015 Posted 25 August 2015 The Yes vote has grown even more now it appears that Westminster has broken promises on further devolution and funding, a referendum held now would probably result in independence. Without a doubt it would, and so it should. Nearly the whole of Scotland voted against policies which the government meant to be representing them has gone completely against, their vote has counted for nothing and the promises given to them are routinely breached.
Guest Bilo Posted 25 August 2015 Posted 25 August 2015 If it makes you feel better, Bilo, I put Burnham as my second preference. I'm more convinced now than ever we need him to win. Corbyn is a nice bloke, but a lot of his supporters are anything but. He's not the unifying candidate we need right now.
bmt Posted 25 August 2015 Posted 25 August 2015 I'm more convinced now than ever we need him to win. Corbyn is a nice bloke, but a lot of his supporters are anything but. He's not the unifying candidate we need right now. For the record if I was a (non-'leftie') Labour supporter I would be begging for Burnham too. He is a good, 'electable' man and has friends on all sides of the party. Liz Kendall for me would be the end of the Labour party far more than Corbyn.
Webbo Posted 25 August 2015 Posted 25 August 2015 "In economics, austerity is a set of policies with the aim of reducing government budget deficits. Austerity policies may include spending cuts, tax increases, or a mixture of both." As it's a stupid question, I will just give you the definition. Are we aiming to reduce the budget deficit through large spending cuts? Yes. For a more intelligent answer, look at food bank usage, deaths related to removal of benefits, and other indicators of lower public spending on the people of this country. Can we see some figure for that? And I don't mean anecdotal evidence from lynchthetories.com.
Buce Posted 25 August 2015 Posted 25 August 2015 Can we see some figure for that? And I don't mean anecdotal evidence from lynchthetotire.com. Those figures are due to be published on Thursday.
bmt Posted 25 August 2015 Posted 25 August 2015 Can we see some figure for that? And I don't mean anecdotal evidence from lynchthetotire.com. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32406120 And as you are aware the death statistics have been purposefully delayed.
Webbo Posted 25 August 2015 Posted 25 August 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32406120 And as you are aware the death statistics have been purposefully delayed. There are statistics that state how many people have died because of benefit cuts? Sorry I don't believe it, how could you prove it?
Guest MattP Posted 25 August 2015 Posted 25 August 2015 Looking forward to it, somehow I don't quite think we'll have seen the much promised coroner's report yet giving cause of death as "cuts in benefits"
Buce Posted 25 August 2015 Posted 25 August 2015 There are statistics that state how many people have died because of benefit cuts? Sorry I don't believe it, how could you prove it? Quite easily: you would compare the death rate with the national average of expected deaths.
bmt Posted 25 August 2015 Posted 25 August 2015 There are statistics that state how many people have died because of benefit cuts? Sorry I don't believe it, how could you prove it? Okay let us not mention the conclusive food bank data, that's probably fine. You could prove it by running regression analyses as I'm sure someone will when it has all been released.
Webbo Posted 25 August 2015 Posted 25 August 2015 Okay let us not mention the conclusive food bank data, that's probably fine. You could prove it by running regression analyses as I'm sure someone will when it has all been released. If you make more food banks available then their use will go up.
Guest MattP Posted 25 August 2015 Posted 25 August 2015 Can see it already from this conversation - Corbyn will completely turn Labour into the benefits Britain political party.
Guest Bilo Posted 25 August 2015 Posted 25 August 2015 If you make more food banks available then their use will go up. You could equally argue that if you create the conditions where food banks become more necessary, the same result will occur.
Webbo Posted 25 August 2015 Posted 25 August 2015 You could equally argue that if you create the conditions where food banks become more necessary, the same result will occur. Let me know when that happens.
bmt Posted 25 August 2015 Posted 25 August 2015 If you make more food banks available then their use will go up. Say's law. That went well for America in the 1930s didn't it.
Guest Bilo Posted 25 August 2015 Posted 25 August 2015 Can see it already from this conversation - Corbyn will completely turn Labour into the benefits Britain political party. Kendall got a lot of flak for saying that we need to have a message for ordinary people as well as weak, vulnerable and disabled people. There ended up being an e-petition calling for her to apologise. I'd have thought that it was common sense for us to appeal to as broad a base as possible, but then I live in the real world. Let me know when that happens.
Guest MattP Posted 25 August 2015 Posted 25 August 2015 Just had a search of "voted for Corbyn" on Twitter and it's absolutely fantastic reading. One did it to show solidarity with the people of Gaza
Guest Bilo Posted 25 August 2015 Posted 25 August 2015 Just had a search of "voted for Corbyn" on Twitter and it's absolutely fantastic reading. One did it to show solidarity with the people of Gaza My idea to go down to London on May Day to set up a Palestine flag stall looks more shrewd by the day.
Webbo Posted 25 August 2015 Posted 25 August 2015 Say's law. That went well for America in the 1930s didn't it. No, you're going to have to be less subtle, I don't know what you're talking about.
bmt Posted 25 August 2015 Posted 25 August 2015 No, you're going to have to be less subtle, I don't know what you're talking about. It would seem not.
bmt Posted 25 August 2015 Posted 25 August 2015 Then kindly explain. Well the widely accepted theory put forward by Keynes after the Great Depression is that Say's Law doesn't hold, ie. supply does not create demand. Therefore, if you were to accept Keynes, just making loads of food banks is not necessarily going to increase their usage unless demand also increases. Food banks would not be created if there was not a demand for them already, that's their whole point.
Webbo Posted 25 August 2015 Posted 25 August 2015 Well the widely accepted theory put forward by Keynes after the Great Depression is that Say's Law doesn't hold, ie. supply does not create demand. Therefore, if you were to accept Keynes, just making loads of food banks is not necessarily going to increase their usage unless demand also increases. Food banks would not be created if there was not a demand for them already, that's their whole point. I think it's different when you're supplying a necessity and it's for free.
bmt Posted 25 August 2015 Posted 25 August 2015 I think it's different when you're supplying a necessity and it's for free. I disagree with you. I actually think it works even less. We are a very proud nation, who the hell wants to be seen going to get free food because they'd rather that than pay for a better choice of food for themselves?
Guest MattP Posted 25 August 2015 Posted 25 August 2015 Do people think voting for Corbyn will solve the food bank problem? Have they not looked at Greece? Food banks are popular because free food is popular, I know a guy who has been a few times, always got money for booze and fags.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.