Peak Corbyn!

I'd just like to know where all of this lovely extra money is coming from?

Every department of government say that they could be 'so much better' with extra funding, something that I don't particularly agree with anyway. But it basically boils down to the country is skint, debt and PFI repayments are buggering up our ability to find extra money for anything.

It is possible to provide housing for so many more, but will it be looked by all of these people, no, because there will be lifestyle and mental issues to deal with, which also costs money.

Politicians of all brands are great at promising the earth when it only needs less that 140 characters or involve folks how haven't a damned clue how society works. Corbyn is particularly bad for this. Remember the claims about Student Loans, then 'Oops sorry, that's not what we meant'...?
 
What is the legal position with regard to empty private residential properties here? Can councils really seize them under current legislation or
would new laws have to be passed by Parliament? I know squatters have to be served notice to vacate a property. Because if the owner tries
to remove them by force they would be breaking the law. Squatting is legal as long no forced entry was required to enter the property and is
why notice to evict them has to be served which then gives them twenty eight days to vacate. And that is exactly the same for a legal tenant
 
I wonder how many of the young idealistic Corbynites know that he is actually a millionaire. I have only ever once seen or heard this
fact reported in the media. If they are against the rich then that should also include Jeremy. Or does it not matter because of who he
is. I applaud their desire even if it is idealistic to effect change but inconvenient facts should not be ignored for reasons of practicality
 
Mikemcc said:
I'd just like to know where all of this lovely extra money is coming from?

Every department of government say that they could be 'so much better' with extra funding, something that I don't particularly agree with anyway. But it basically boils down to the country is skint, debt and PFI repayments are buggering up our ability to find extra money for anything.

It is possible to provide housing for so many more, but will it be looked by all of these people, no, because there will be lifestyle and mental issues to deal with, which also costs money.

Politicians of all brands are great at promising the earth when it only needs less that 140 characters or involve folks how haven't a damned clue how society works. Corbyn is particularly bad for this. Remember the claims about Student Loans, then 'Oops sorry, that's not what we meant'...?
Click to expand...
As I mentioned above this would save money, approximately a billion a year after the 2nd year.
 
surreptitious57 said:
I wonder how many of the young idealistic Corbynites know that he is actually a millionaire. I have only ever once seen or heard this
fact reported in the media. If they are against the rich then that should also include Jeremy. Or does it not matter because of who he
is. I applaud their desire even if it is idealistic to effect change but inconvenient facts should not be ignored for reasons of practicality
Click to expand...
Evidence?
 
surreptitious57 said:
I wonder how many of the young idealistic Corbynites know that he is actually a millionaire. I have only ever once seen or heard this
fact reported in the media. If they are against the rich then that should also include Jeremy. Or does it not matter because of who he
is. I applaud their desire even if it is idealistic to effect change but inconvenient facts should not be ignored for reasons of practicality
Click to expand...

Looking at his income (from all sources) and the value of his home this comes as a surprise. Do you have a link for that?
 
GlennB said:
Looking at his income (from all sources) and the value of his home this comes as a surprise. Do you have a link for that?
Click to expand...

IIRC There was a newspaper 'attack article' (Mail maybe?) just after he got the leadership that claimed he'd taken some huge amount of taxpayers money. Turned out they were adding up every penny he's ever earned as an MP in his his working life. I suspect sureptitious57 is misremembering that, which is of course the whole purpose of such articles...
 
Being a millionaire has lost its meaning somewhat these days anyway.

According to Zoopla, the average price of a terraced house in London is around three quarters of a million.

Add into that a pension pot and some modest savings and its not that hard to get a million. In fact, I'd be quite surprised is Corbs isn't a millionaire, given the likely size of his pension.

http://www.the-net-worth.com/2016/05/jeremy-corbyn/

Gives his likey net worth as £800k but that obviously excludes his pension.

The point is: So what?
 
lionking said:
Optics.

I have assets of well over a million (both in Aussie dollars and probably euros) but I'm not leading a sanctimonious, socialist joke of a party like Labour.
Click to expand...

An MP shouldn't be paid? An MP shouldn't own her own home? We should just have the wealthy who can self fund a parliamentary seat in the commons?
 
Hubert Cumberdale said:
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "Optics"?
Click to expand...

It's a pretty well used political term nowadays.

2North American usually treated as singular (typically in a political context) the way in which an event or course of action is perceived by the public.
‘the issue itself is secondary to the optics of the Democrats opposing this administration in a high-profile way’
Click to expand...
 
Darat said:
An MP shouldn't be paid? An MP shouldn't own her own home? We should just have the wealthy who can self fund a parliamentary seat in the commons?
Click to expand...

Did I say any of these things? Have you not heard of "optics"? If not, see above.
 
lionking said:
Did I say any of these things? Have you not heard of "optics"? If not, see above.
Click to expand...

As you have been asked - what do you mean by optics then? He is an elderly person who has been in employment all his working life and he owns a house and he has a final salary style pension.

The only way you can change the "optics" is if he gave up his salary and his pension and his house, which as I said means he would have to self-fund being a MP and leader of the opposition, and how would he do that?

There is no "optics" to this issue, just vicious stupidity from the likes of the Daily Mail.

There are plenty of things that Corbyn can be criticised about, this is not one of them.
 
lionking said:
It's a pretty well used political term nowadays.
Click to expand...

Never heard it used in that context, so not so well used in the UK.

What you appear to be saying is that you can't have any credibility as a socialist if you have any money.

Sorry, but I reject that.

If Corbyn was behaving in a hypocritical manner - protecting his own assets while advocating taxing others, then I would agree. But he's quite consistent in his view points.

On the other hand, Dianne Abbot sending her children to private school while berating others for doing so is not OK. As Malcolm Tucker would have said to her "They go to the comp"
 
Darat said:
As you have been asked - what do you mean by optics then? He is an elderly person who has been in employment all his working life and he owns a house and he has a final salary style pension.

The only way you can change the "optics" is if he gave up his salary and his pension and his house, which as I said means he would have to self-fund being a MP and leader of the opposition, and how would he do that?

There is no "optics" to this issue, just vicious stupidity from the likes of the Daily Mail.

There are plenty of things that Corbyn can be criticised about, this is not one of them.
Click to expand...

Like a true socialist? Sure. Let his house go to the homeless.
 
lionking said:
Like a true socialist? Sure. Let his house go to the homeless.
Click to expand...

And where would he live and what would he live on?

I would say it is a tad irrational in regards to Corbyn if you think someone leading a centrist political party in the UK should have to sell their house so "the optics" look better to you.
 
Hubert Cumberdale said:
Never heard it used in that context, so not so well used in the UK.

What you appear to be saying is that you can't have any credibility as a socialist if you have any money.
Click to expand...

Yes that is what I'm saying. Corbyn's old style socialism is dead and buried.
 
Darat said:
And where would he live and what would he live on?

I would say it is a tad irrational in regards to Corbyn if you think someone leading a centrist political party in the UK should have to sell their house so "the optics" look better to you.
Click to expand...

This is a joke, right?

Labour were centrist until Corbyn took control.
 
lionking said:
This is a joke, right?

Labour were centrist until Corbyn took control.
Click to expand...

Nope - in my lifetime experience of UK politics they are certainly centrist, in the UK like unfortunately a few other countries recently all our political parties skewed to the right a tad since the days of Thatcher but overall Labour has moved back to being a centralist party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom