Voll Blau Posted 25 November 2015 Posted 25 November 2015 "John, they think we are too left wing" "I know Jez, I'll quote Mao during my response to the Autumn statement, that'll show em" Absolutely fvcking mental idea. Corbyn and Labour have every right to crow about what is a pretty huge U-Turn from Osborne and then shoot themselves in the foot 30 seconds later by doing this? Somebody needs sacking over that one.
Alf Bentley Posted 25 November 2015 Posted 25 November 2015 All long term spending plans are based on predictions so nothing different there but it is a bit of a gamble. I think there's a decent chance that there'll be a mild recession in the next 5 years which could throw all of his figures out. If unemployment stays low and people feel better off I don't think many will care about hitting a surplus though. I don't disagree with that, though I think it'll be a long time until we see a surplus under any government - particularly after this spending review. Bearing in mind all the global economic/political turbulence and structural problems of the UK economy, too. Yes, governments are always gambling on economic forecasts, which are usually wrong. But the forecasters have handed him a large wad of extra cash (imaginary or not). According to previous austerity rhetoric, you'd expect him to use a lot of that to cut the deficit. Instead, he's U-turned over tax credits, significantly reduced the austerity cuts, supported more public spending than expected - and even plans a range of tax rises, according to the FT. According to the FT, Osborne "is stealing Ed Miliband's clothes....implementing the programme that Labour proposed at the May election than its own manifesto proposals", reducing spending cuts from £30bn in June to £10.4bn in November! http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e65dd262-9384-11e5-b190-291e94b77c8f.html#axzz3sW5tOdo3 I'm not complaining. Unless something very big and nasty is hidden in his plans, it's a spending review to please the centre-left more than the right. That begs the question why he's doing it.... It could be that 3 big motivations coincide: (1) the desire to win a "Yes" vote in the EU referendum; (2) the desire to wipe Labour off the map while it is in a weak state; (3) the desire to take over from Cameron at No. 10. Maybe all 3 motivations are better served by occupying the centre ground, not slashing the incomes of low paid workers, not slashing public spending as much as expected and keeping money in the real economy rather than using it to cut the deficit? Maybe he anticipates that, if he slashed and burned too much, he'd give a (hypothetical) resurgent Labour Party a stick to beat him with, and could potentially lose both the EU referendum and the Tory leadership? Whatever else he is, he's not a fool - and I'm sure he's not taken such a soft line out of personal generosity or a sudden conversion to Keynesian economics or New Labour politics.
MooseBreath Posted 25 November 2015 Posted 25 November 2015 From my understanding there's nothing Keyensian about it at this stage of the economic cycle. Keyensian economics advocates running a surplus during periods of economic growth. And I don't think he has lurched too far to the left either. He's still looking at austerity, just not quite as severe, because it doesn't need to be if the growth forecasts are correct (and if they're not he blames the forecasts).
SMX11 Posted 25 November 2015 Posted 25 November 2015 What is clear the the national debt will clearly rise by 300mil + with the lack of spending cuts. Tax rises will only reduce growth prospects which appears to be Gideon's only hope.
Claridge Posted 26 November 2015 Posted 26 November 2015 Man of principle refusing to bomb ISIS. 25% of the electorate in the Oldham by election are Muslim!Sure it's a coincidence what next quoting from a mass murders book and thinking it's funny. Jezza ' my struggle'
The Doctor Posted 26 November 2015 Posted 26 November 2015 Man of principle refusing to bomb ISIS. 25% of the electorate in the Oldham by election are Muslim!Sure it's a coincidence what next quoting from a mass murders book and thinking it's funny. Jezza ' my struggle' Does being a complete tool take practice or does this just come naturally? Refusing to bomb ISIS isn't pandering to muslims, nor will it be about it (for one, the majority of muslims aren't as batshit crazy as ISIS and just cherry pick the nice stuff, and don't support them, also ISIS are killing mostly muslims of differing sects), it's about whether they're effective, or whether it just directs them from conventional war vs Assad + other syrian groups into the sort of terrorism that devastated Paris a fortnight ago (for the record, they are working in disrupting ISIS' activity and allowing the Kurds and other opposing forces to hold ground or even in some cases reclaim territory).
Claridge Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 Does being a complete tool take practice or does this just come naturally? Refusing to bomb ISIS isn't pandering to muslims, nor will it be about it (for one, the majority of muslims aren't as batshit crazy as ISIS and just cherry pick the nice stuff, and don't support them, also ISIS are killing mostly muslims of differing sects), it's about whether they're effective, or whether it just directs them from conventional war vs Assad + other syrian groups into the sort of terrorism that devastated Paris a fortnight ago (for the record, they are working in disrupting ISIS' activity and allowing the Kurds and other opposing forces to hold ground or even in some cases reclaim territory). Ok if you say so.Cant say I've seen an outpouring of hatred towards Isis and most surveys show a level of sympathy from many young Muslims. Then again you can always believe some old fart the bbc rolls out ,who has no idea about the young in his community .
The Doctor Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 Ok if you say so.Cant say I've seen an outpouring of hatred towards Isis and most surveys show a level of sympathy from many young Muslims. Then again you can always believe some old fart the bbc rolls out ,who has no idea about the young in his community . I'd go more from the muslims across all forms of social media claiming ISIS aren't real muslims (and accusing other people of not being muslims without proof is takfir, which is a sort of sin, so these people are sort of breaking a tenant of their religion to distance themselves from those nut jobs) and insisting they don't represent Muslims as a whole, or the imams condemning them at every turn. There'll be a small amount of support, but the majority, it's safe to say, do not want what ISIS is doing and have no support for them.
ithuriel Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 All very nice if the economy does become stronger but manufacturing is not the best at present, engineering company I work for is struggling so badly they have allowed me to just take days off when I please and the guys that deliver the steel say it is not much better in other parts of the country, though Tata are right in the crap too.
MooseBreath Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 For a master of chemistry I would have thought anecdotal social media observations wouldn't be worth much. There are some statistically legitimate surveys out there that suggest at best concerning levels of support. Not to mention the pointlessness of this discussion in the first place when nobody is suggesting any sort of mass action against Muslims as a whole.
The Doctor Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 For a master of chemistry I would have thought anecdotal social media observations wouldn't be worth much. There are some statistically legitimate surveys out there that suggest at best concerning levels of support. Not to mention the pointlessness of this discussion in the first place when nobody is suggesting any sort of mass action against Muslims as a whole. Individual anecdotes aren't worth much as far as evidence goes, even more so if they contradict the evidence - hence why people who say vaccines caused their kids autism aren't worth listening to. But, when it's a mass outcry rather than just one or two, and doesn't contradict the evidence we have (don't quote the sun poll, the questioning in that was incredibly underhand to give the answer the sun wanted) it's a reasonable snapshot of opinions and worth acknowledgement
MooseBreath Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 I haven't seen the sun poll but the after the Charlie Hebdo attacks was legitimate and concerning.
Alf Bentley Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 I haven't seen the sun poll but the after the Charlie Hebdo attacks was legitimate and concerning. Hadn't seen it myself, so just checked to see exactly what question was asked and what responses were given. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/6758207/1-in-5-British-Muslims-have-sympathy-for-jihadis-in-poll.html The question was: "How do you feel about young Muslims who leave the UK to join fighters in Syria?" The answers were: 71% No sympathy; 14% Some sympathy; 5% A lot of sympathy; 10% Don't Know Ideally, you'd want everyone to be wise enough not to want anyone to involve themselves in foreign wars involving extremist organisations. However, it has to be said that the question makes absolutely no mention of either terrorism or even ISIS - some people have gone and joined other groups. Also, people could have replied "some sympathy" for various reasons: e.g. "some bad stuff has happened in the Middle East so I've some sympathy for misguided young people wanting to do something about it" A minority of young Muslims supporting ISIS terrorism is a real problem, but the headline "1 in 5 Muslims' sympathy for Jihadis" is a massive distortion based on that poll....it's mainly a fraction of the 5% "lot of sympathy" people we need to worry about.
MooseBreath Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 I agree that's a poor survey but other more credible surveys have been done with concerning results. I suppose it's easy to ignore it by focusing on a poor survey even though better surveys exist like it's easy to ignore the threat of home grown terrorism by focusing on arguing that not all Muslims are terrorists even though nobody is suggesting mass action against Muslims.
David Guiza Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 I get that Corbyn has shown a naivety and lack of leadership with regards to a proportion of what he has done and said thus far, but I really think that media circus and political backlash is hugely over the top. Yes, to suggest that suspected terrorists shouldn't be shot on sight and opposing drone strikes in the wake of the Paris attacks was perhaps naïve to say the least, particularly giving the timing, but condemning a man for having morals is just a little bizarre to me. Yes it is highly likely that he is the wrong man and it's the wrong time, but I actually agree with aspects of what he represents and I don't think I'm alone with that. The fact it's 2015 and large proportions of this country think the only way to counter terrorism is to bomb the hell out of an already deprived nation and it's citizens is a little backward at best. That's not me saying that we shouldn't take action. I'm a firm believer that we have an unwritten code to protect those worse off than us, and to counter threats like ISIS, Al Quaeda etc. However, believing that there are alternate ways than to drone attack is hardly the worst thing a man can do. I guess he could always follow in Cameron and other predecessors footsteps in befriending nations that supply terrorist groups with weaponry in the first place though.
leicsmac Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 I get that Corbyn has shown a naivety and lack of leadership with regards to a proportion of what he has done and said thus far, but I really think that media circus and political backlash is hugely over the top. Yes, to suggest that suspected terrorists shouldn't be shot on sight and opposing drone strikes in the wake of the Paris attacks was perhaps naïve to say the least, particularly giving the timing, but condemning a man for having morals is just a little bizarre to me. Yes it is highly likely that he is the wrong man and it's the wrong time, but I actually agree with aspects of what he represents and I don't think I'm alone with that. The fact it's 2015 and large proportions of this country think the only way to counter terrorism is to bomb the hell out of an already deprived nation and it's citizens is a little backward at best. That's not me saying that we shouldn't take action. I'm a firm believer that we have an unwritten code to protect those worse off than us, and to counter threats like ISIS, Al Quaeda etc. However, believing that there are alternate ways than to drone attack is hardly the worst thing a man can do. I guess he could always follow in Cameron and other predecessors footsteps in befriending nations that supply terrorist groups with weaponry in the first place though. This. It didn't work in Vietnam, didn't really work in Afghanistan, and probably isn't going to work here either. That being said, what solution is there? Backing away and letting them come to the negotiating table isn't going to work as what they want and will die for no sane man would give up, and stronger measures (like boots on the ground) has the likelihood of turning into another bloody 'police action' as well as giving their propaganda merchants exactly what they want - a chance to kill the infidel on sacred soil.
Alf Bentley Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 I agree that's a poor survey but other more credible surveys have been done with concerning results. I suppose it's easy to ignore it by focusing on a poor survey even though better surveys exist like it's easy to ignore the threat of home grown terrorism by focusing on arguing that not all Muslims are terrorists even though nobody is suggesting mass action against Muslims. I'd be interested to see some data from those more credible surveys. I certainly wouldn't advocate ignoring what is a very serious problem. Last I heard, something like 800 British Muslims had gone to Syria to fight. That alone is very serious. There needs to be a concerted attempt to understand why these people are going out there, to prevent more people doing likewise - and to closely monitor those who have got involved to stop them presenting a security threat. They are a tiny minority, but it is a major problem. It doesn't help when a paper seeks to boost its sales by spreading fear and hatred of particular groups, based on deliberate, irresponsible distortions. The survey question asked about "young Muslims joining fighters in Syria", yet the Sun's headline, in the wake of the Paris atrocities, referred to sympathy for "Jihadis" (which many would read as including the Paris terrorists). Likewise, its picture was of Jihadi John brandishing a vicious knife. Perhaps they should have asked "Do you support the Paris bombings?" or "Do you support Jihadi John's beheadings?" The results would have been interesting - and much lower than the 5% who had "a lot of sympathy" for young Muslims joining fighters in Syria and the 14% who had "some sympathy". I'm sure that quite a lot of Muslims have sympathy for their aims or instincts, but none for Islamic State, still less for the beheading, shooting and bombing of innocent civilians.
Wymsey Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 Livingstone underfire after blaming Blair for 7/7 bombings. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34941658
RobHawk Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 This. It didn't work in Vietnam, didn't really work in Afghanistan, and probably isn't going to work here either. That being said, what solution is there? Backing away and letting them come to the negotiating table isn't going to work as what they want and will die for no sane man would give up, and stronger measures (like boots on the ground) has the likelihood of turning into another bloody 'police action' as well as giving their propaganda merchants exactly what they want - a chance to kill the infidel on sacred soil. I completely agree! Bombing in Syria and Iraq hasn't really worked so far has it? The biggest issue in Syria, is there are to many parties involved, all with their own agendas. Jumping in there and joining this confusion isn't going to make it any easier. There is alot more we could do - stop assets being invested into ISIS (particularly from Saudi Arabia), work to protect the Syrians that are left against ISIS and Assad (to stop the disenfranchised join ISIS in the first place), ensure those that are leaving europe to join ISIS are stopped from getting there. Alf mentioned 800 have left the UK alone - thats alot of people
RobHawk Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 Looking closer to home, when stories against the church continue to be news (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34940723) it makes you wonder why we allow them to still have such influence in the HOL. I also don't beleive the Church represent the views of this country anymore - they are so out of date its unreal!
RobHawk Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 Also, post budget this has now come out: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/nov/25/osborne-student-loan-tuition-fees-university-higher-education-autumn-statement The government engaged in a consultation in which they offered 3 options. It was clear option 1 would be what the government would prefer as it would save most money, option 3 would be better for students and made more sense - and option 2 was somewhere in the middle. Only 5% of respondents agreed with option 1 and its what the government has gone for. Not sure the point of the consultation when you do what you want anyway. Not only that, but the biggest issue with option 1 is that it changes the repayment terms and conditions for students who have already taken out loans. This would be illegal with any form of finance but the government see it as a good idea. In football terms, the government are moving the goalposts after the game has kicked off. Shocking decision by George - and i for one hope it's taken to court and proved unlawful!
Webbo Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 Looking closer to home, when stories against the church continue to be news (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34940723) it makes you wonder why we allow them to still have such influence in the HOL. I also don't beleive the Church represent the views of this country anymore - they are so out of date its unreal! How is that relevant?It's not like it's official church policy. We don't stop politicians from having influence because some MPs have been paedophiles. The church represent the views of a lot of people in this country, why shouldn't their views be heard?
Guest Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 How is that relevant?It's not like it's official church policy. We don't stop politicians from having influence because some MPs have been paedophiles. The church represent the views of a lot of people in this country, why shouldn't their views be heard? Because they are powerful loonies who believe in a make believe figure maybe.
Webbo Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 Because they are powerful loonies who believe in a make believe figure maybe. It's called pluralism.Some people, despite all the evidence to the contrary, still believe in socialism. Nobody wants to stop having their opinions heard.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.