Current Affairs Jeremy Corbyn, Russian/Czech agent ?......

[Jib in lad]

What, helping the poor, vulnerable and disabled that you say you are 'concerned' about.

He is trolling mate ignore him.

 

[peteblue]

Oh dear. If I mention what a British soldier gets up to, does that mean it is anti their religion or is it anti British?

Depends on how the Jewish people view it. Corbyn only insults my intelligence, not my background.......

 

[bluestevon]

Telegraph....

“Labour MPs were cheered as they praised Theresa May on Monday for doing “the right thing” by bombing Syria, while Jeremy Corbyn was disowned from his backbenches for turning a “blind eye” to who is responsible for gassing children.

The Labour leader was left isolated as his own MPs mocked him for criticising Mrs May for ordering airstrikes on Assad regime targets following a chemical weapons attack near Damascus.”

The worm is turning......but we need him in place until Brexit is completed.....just hold in there Jeremy......

How's that looking now about completely separate news sources including Fisk and even some American news outlets see reporting that in fact no chemical attack seems to have taken place mate?

Gonna be a lot of labour and most Tory MPs with a lot of explaining to do shortly, another case as with Iraq of people jumping in with both feet backing military action, as for the labour mps, good, it will hopefully finally finish them as a constant thorn in corbyns side, as they have been made to look utterly stupid - this strengthens Corbyn yet again, with luck he will be the next pm.

 

[Socrates]

There is no implication that others will die.

I did indeed mean that I will live through it, or with it as you say. Some people will not be able to live through it as he would certainly destroy our economy. He has no policies except to borrow and spend money on all his promises, which are added to every time he remembers a new sector of voters. Those with resources will, as always, be fine until he gets thrown out, with the economy in tatters. My fear is for those that are already poor and vulnerable......

You're acting as if the economy isn't a shambles already.

All money is created as debt.

Whether that debt is created by governments at sovereign rates, currently 0.75% and serviced by 40 million taxpayers and corporate entities or it is created by private financial interests at commercial rates, anything from 3% to 1300% and paid for by individuals and businesses, which because of the higher rates increases deficits, is the real issue.

It is a fallacy to believe that government debt is wrong, because it's cheaper to service, easier to raise and more evenly distributed to make it more affordable to pay.

Also, money injected direct into public services such as health, education and social services is circulated an average of 5.82 times around the economy causing 78p in every £1 to be returned to the exchequer.

Conversely, when the same £1 is given to private entities, the so-called "wealth creators", it circulates an average of 2.14 times resulting in a 38p tax take.

You've been conned into thinking private capital and market forces are the be all and end all because it serves a tiny minority of people who just happen to own the narrative.

What is wrong is that large multi-nationals and wealthy asset holders take larger and larger portions of the national productivity in the forms of wage suppression, exporting our jobs abroad, tax avoidance and asset stripping as well as foreign governments owning our infrastructure, benefiting from our very own water, gas and electricity supplies and our railways.

And you think the guy who wants to bring those assets back into our ownership and re-balance the economy back towards the actual people who do the work in this country is a danger??

I thought you were the guy who wanted to take back control. Perhaps one of us is mistaken.

 

[bluestevon]

You're acting as if the economy isn't a shambles already.

All money is created as debt.

Whether that debt is created by governments at sovereign rates, currently 0.75% and serviced by 40 million taxpayers and corporate entities or it is created by private financial interests at commercial rates, anything from 3% to 1300% and paid for by individuals and businesses, which because of the higher rates increases deficits, is the real issue.

It is a fallacy to believe that government debt is wrong, because it's cheaper to service, easier to raise and more evenly distributed to make it more affordable to pay.

Also, money injected direct into public services such as health, education and social services is circulated an average of 5.82 times around the economy causing 78p in every £1 to be returned to the exchequer.

Conversely, when the same £1 is given to private entities, the so-called "wealth creators", it circulates an average of 2.14 times resulting in a 38p tax take.

You've been conned into thinking private capital and market forces are the be all and end all because it serves a tiny minority of people who just happen to own the narrative.

What is wrong is that large multi-nationals and wealthy asset holders take larger and larger portions of the national productivity in the forms of wage suppression, exporting our jobs abroad, tax avoidance and asset stripping as well as foreign governments owning our infrastructure, benefiting from our very own water, gas and electricity supplies and our railways.

And you think the guy who wants to bring those assets back into our ownership and re-balance the economy back towards the actual people who do the work in this country is a danger??

I thought you were the guy who wanted to take back control. Perhaps one of us is mistaken.

Pete's a nationalist, a Tory, pro military action, supports foreign intervention when it suits the political right agendas, is pro Brexit, believes what the MSM narrative if the day is, likely subscribes to the daily mail and other right wing pieces of big roll masquerading as papers.

Thinks corbyns a traitor, thinks may is aa patriot, probably rants about benefit scroungers ruining our economy and the poles taking our jobs and a variety of other spoon fed drivel.

Probably thinks Thatcher was a good pm as well.

 

[Socrates]

Nah. I try to avoid name calling and labelling.

I prefer to understand somebody's position and give my view on the subject in order to get closer to the truth.

Emotions and beliefs are difficult to address as they feel like personal attacks and the response is generally not positive.

It's been said that all our decisions are emotional and we use facts to support those decisions so very few on here are going to change the beliefs and emotions of others, so it's best to state your position and not to get drawn into an emotional dispute that might amuse others as it leaves the protagonists worse for the experience quite often.

So, I'm interested in why significant members of the many think that the few have their interests at heart.

 

[peteblue]

Pete's a nationalist, a Tory, pro military action, supports foreign intervention when it suits the political right agendas, is pro Brexit, believes what the MSM narrative if the day is, likely subscribes to the daily mail and other right wing pieces of big roll masquerading as papers.

Thinks corbyns a traitor, thinks may is aa patriot, probably rants about benefit scroungers ruining our economy and the poles taking our jobs and a variety of other spoon fed drivel.

Probably thinks Thatcher was a good pm as well.

She was the very best in modern times......

 

[bluestevon]

She was the very best in modern times......

Fair enough mate

Myself i celebrated one thing she did, which was when she finally stopped breathing, that was a very very happy moment in my household

 

[Gwladysstreetlad]

True that, he thinks the tories are too leftwing..

I don't think it's fair to say he thinks them left-wing. He thinks they are Blairrites who lack any sincere political conviction in their beliefs and are basically just career politicians happy to blow whichever way the wind takes them providing they maintain the status quo and couldn't give a dam about principles or the people who vote for them. He thinks the same about the bulk of the Labour party and indeed Westminster as a whole. Hitchens actually defends Corbyn frequently though he obviously agrees with very little the man has to say.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

There is no implication that others will die.

I did indeed mean that I will live through it, or with it as you say. Some people will not be able to live through it as he would certainly destroy our economy. He has no policies except to borrow and spend money on all his promises, which are added to every time he remembers a new sector of voters. Those with resources will, as always, be fine until he gets thrown out, with the economy in tatters. My fear is for those that are already poor and vulnerable......

Because the Conservative party have really been doing a lot to help these people?!?!?

 

[catcherintherye]

Are you really surprised that those who love, value and protect our country would not allow a nutter to destroy it.......

I love and respect my country mate, and from my experience it is being destroyed under this regime, but it gives me no right to organise to depose those who were elected to govern does it? Part of loving mens country must surely be to respect the mandate it's populous provides.

To be honest, if a candidate is so bad he/she would destroy the country and is elected there are 3 possibilities (for me):
1) The Country you love and admire is full of idiots so this needs to be re-appraised.
2) The person you think is awful is maybe not all bad
3) You are bad at conveying your message (so need to work on that).

I will never have the idea that banks, hedge funds, armed forces, financiers etc have the right to overturn election results or indeed referendum results (brexit) because they don't like the outcome.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

What, helping the poor, vulnerable and disabled that you say you are 'concerned' about.

As a local, what are your thoughts on this piece? It's from the national conversation on immigration and focuses specifically on Hull.

http://nationalconversation.uk/hull-where-regeneration-has-accompanied-immigration/

"Hull was once the UK’s third largest port. But fishing quotas, containerisation, the loss of manufacturing industry, together with poor road and rail links dealt Hull a severe blow. Jobs were lost and people moved away dried up much of the commerce in this once thriving city. In 1931 Hull’s population stood at 309,000, but by 2001 it had fallen to 244,000. People continued to leave Hull at a time when other northern cities were seeing a reversal of their population decline and were growing. By 2009, Hull was the UK’s poorest city in terms of average weekly wages, its housing stock was dirt cheap and its schools were under-performing.

Decades of decline have now started to be reversed, with the city centre and the old docks seeing considerable regeneration. There has also been recent investment from large companies such as Siemens. Hull was the UK City of Culture in 2017 which brought many visitors and jobs to the city, as well as £100 million for civic improvements. Most of the citizens’ panel had attended City of Culture events which seem to have contributed to a growing civic pride in the city."

Is that a fair representation or are they factually wrong in some way?

 

[Old Blue 2]

She was the very best in modern times......

Au contraire, she was the worst ever in my lifetime...

 

[bluestevon]

As a local, what are your thoughts on this piece? It's from the national conversation on immigration and focuses specifically on Hull.

http://nationalconversation.uk/hull-where-regeneration-has-accompanied-immigration/

"Hull was once the UK’s third largest port. But fishing quotas, containerisation, the loss of manufacturing industry, together with poor road and rail links dealt Hull a severe blow. Jobs were lost and people moved away dried up much of the commerce in this once thriving city. In 1931 Hull’s population stood at 309,000, but by 2001 it had fallen to 244,000. People continued to leave Hull at a time when other northern cities were seeing a reversal of their population decline and were growing. By 2009, Hull was the UK’s poorest city in terms of average weekly wages, its housing stock was dirt cheap and its schools were under-performing.

Decades of decline have now started to be reversed, with the city centre and the old docks seeing considerable regeneration. There has also been recent investment from large companies such as Siemens. Hull was the UK City of Culture in 2017 which brought many visitors and jobs to the city, as well as £100 million for civic improvements. Most of the citizens’ panel had attended City of Culture events which seem to have contributed to a growing civic pride in the city."

Is that a fair representation or are they factually wrong in some way?

I've included the remainder of the article after your quoted part just for completeness sakes mate, casts a slightly more balanced view on the future and the regeneration of the city i think... and also casts a severe doubt IMO on what the future holds post Brexit for the City.

"Industrial decline and high unemployment meant that Hull saw little immigration until recently. At the time of the 2001 census, nearly 97% of its population was of white British ethnicity. Hull’s overseas born population were mostly international students. But the introduction of a Home Office dispersal system in 1999 meant that Hull began taking in asylum-seekers.

The arrival of a new group of people in poor and overwhelmingly white neighbourhoods was met with resistance. An asylum-seeker was stabbed and another lost an eye and racist attacks were frequent. But both the citizens’ panel and the stakeholders we met felt that attitudes had changed since then. A local panellist told us:

“Because we are in the far end of nowhere, and we have one road in, one road out, it’s a bit of a culture shock for a lot of people recently, I think. If you go to somewhere like Leeds, it’s a lot more multicultural, and I think for Hull in particular, it was just a bit shock, for some people, or some people are just seeing what other people have seen for a long time”

There was a recognition that asylum dispersal had prevented houses becoming derelict in the poorer parts of the city. Job growth had also brought EU migrants to Hull. By 2016, 9% of its population was born abroad, including an estimated 6,000 strong Polish community.

As in other parts of the UK, the arrival of EU migrants has been met with concerns and questions. Our citizens’ panel felt that immigration sometimes put pressure on schools and the health service. They had little trust in the Government to enforce its immigration rules and talked about “a broken system”. But they also felt that many new arrivals had made a positive contribution to the local economy, with some setting up businesses and reviving the poorest neighbourhoods in what had been a “dying city”.

Most local residents have made the association between migration into Hull, investment and a reversal of the city’s decline. Greater prosperity has had a positive impact on most people in Hull and contributed to a growing and inclusive civil pride in the city. We felt that our visit to Hull showed how regeneration can help improve community relations where its benefits are shared fairly."

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I didn't include the rest as it was primarily about how immigration has changed the town, and how the townsfolk think about immigration (as you'd expect from a project concerned with immigration).