You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Jeremy Corbyn
November 27 2024 11.53am

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Jeremy Corbyn

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 252 of 464 < 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 >

  

nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 03 Oct 16 12.51pm

Originally posted by Stuk

Blaxploitation on top of the anti-semitism.

You're the one who made the link.
Racist

Of course brother or sister will be ousted soon because of pangender or gender fluid people getting upset.

Edited by nickgusset (03 Oct 2016 12.57pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Willo Flag South coast - west of Brighton. 03 Oct 16 12.58pm Send a Private Message to Willo Add Willo as a friend

Originally posted by nickgusset

Corbyn has been saying for years that austerity cuts are not the way to growth.Its well known the misery inflicted on millions, e.g child poverty up, authority budget cut impacts on care etc. Are the Tories coming round to Corbyn's way of thinking?

We don't need to take any advice from the leader of a party that has just announced a gargantuan borrowing/spending spree which would bankrupt this great nation of ours.Incredulous.

That'as much as I will say on this thread.Not wasting my time and energy on Corbyn and his discredited Labour party.

Edited by Willo (03 Oct 2016 12.59pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
elgrande Flag bedford 03 Oct 16 1.14pm Send a Private Message to elgrande Add elgrande as a friend

Originally posted by nickgusset

I don't know mate. One would hope so.
It's a crying shame that veterans have to rely on charity - 6th richest nation in the world and all...

Probably help fund Momentum.....

 


always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Stuk Flag Top half 03 Oct 16 1.14pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Originally posted by nickgusset

You're the one who made the link.
Racist

Of course brother or sister will be ousted soon because of pangender or gender fluid people getting upset.

Edited by nickgusset (03 Oct 2016 12.57pm)

They're all s*** terms.

Fellow c***s they should go with, as a cover all.

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
elgrande Flag bedford 03 Oct 16 1.19pm Send a Private Message to elgrande Add elgrande as a friend

Originally posted by nickgusset

I don't know mate. One would hope so.
It's a crying shame that veterans have to rely on charity - 6th richest nation in the world and all...


It's not just veterans nick, my boy tells me that they have put the price of all the food now ..and it's s*** the basic food he wouldn't give to a dog.so they have to pay more for the better food,which is still s*** I think he eats out most of the time.
Even though he still has to pay Sedexo (the out sourced company that now provides the catering).

Edited by elgrande (03 Oct 2016 1.20pm)

 


always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 03 Oct 16 1.40pm

Originally posted by elgrande


It's not just veterans nick, my boy tells me that they have put the price of all the food now ..and it's s*** the basic food he wouldn't give to a dog.so they have to pay more for the better food,which is still s*** I think he eats out most of the time.
Even though he still has to pay Sedexo (the out sourced company that now provides the catering).

Edited by elgrande (03 Oct 2016 1.20pm)

The good old put our services out to market tender is the best option argument fails again. If you vote for labour this sort of thing wouldn't happen.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Lyons550 Flag Shirley 03 Oct 16 2.30pm Send a Private Message to Lyons550 Add Lyons550 as a friend

Originally posted by nickgusset

Hammond just gave a speech that basically said Torys are abandoning everything Osborne did on the economy and adopting pretty much everything Ed Balls promised that they said was so damaging in 2015.

Still its good news, whoever delivers such policies.

Wonder how many who said labour didn't have a clue think a bloke mirroring the same ideas have.

Whilst I would agree with you to a certain extent nick, its only as a result of the BREXIT vote that the government are looking to change tact, and as such gearing us up for EU Extraction.

Austerity is/was a necessary evil, but don't be fooled that the reason its being halted is due to the Tories thinking its no longer needed; they're clearly ramping up the manufacturing base of the country in readiness for being more self sufficient and less reliant on eastern European site workers.

....but do you honestly think as a country we'd be in a position to do this if we hadn't gone through all the austerity we have to date (?)

 


The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 03 Oct 16 2.55pm

Originally posted by Lyons550

Whilst I would agree with you to a certain extent nick, its only as a result of the BREXIT vote that the government are looking to change tact, and as such gearing us up for EU Extraction.

Austerity is/was a necessary evil, but don't be fooled that the reason its being halted is due to the Tories thinking its no longer needed; they're clearly ramping up the manufacturing base of the country in readiness for being more self sufficient and less reliant on eastern European site workers.

....but do you honestly think as a country we'd be in a position to do this if we hadn't gone through all the austerity we have to date (?)

I do mate, had we started investing in housing and the infrastructure that goes with it it would have created a lot more jobs which would in turn increased tax revenue and put money into the economy when people spent their hard earned.

A hypothetical scenario...

Interest rates are incredibly low. 3 or 4 years ago the government were paying around 2.3 percent on 15 year loans. A loan (based on these interest rates ) of £1billion would cost £24.3 million a year on repayments.

If the loan were invested in building social housing, which in the north west would cost somewhere in the region of £120k per house, the money could be spent on 8300 houses. If they were then let out at an affordable rent-somewhere between social housing and market rent) the average return would be around £5.5k per house per year. That's a return of £46 million a year roughly. That covers the interest payments on the initial loan leaves a surplus of around £21.5m per year which over 15 years is a surplus of £322.5 million.
Add in inflation, say a conservative 2% a year, in 15 years time the £1 billion will be worth about 30% less than it is today.

If people are coming off benefits to take up jobs building the housesthere is additional benefit. If we take an average yearly benefit payment of £5,200 a year (£100 a week)is saved. If the average wage is around £22 k the same person would pay around 33.5k in tax and NI, giving a benefit to the public of £8.7k a year (benefit savings + tax and NI income)

If 500 people were used to build the houses, using the rough figures above it brings in savings and tax incomes of £4.35 million a year. As I've said these people would also spend their hard earned on goods and services, the supplers of which will also benefit, perhaps expand taking on more people, make more money so pay more tax.

Also, the suppliers of the materials to build the houses would benefit, and again this increases their profits and leads to more tax paid.

The initial billion borrowed for investment would actually be worth a lot more to the economy in the long run.

If this were to be repeated around the country, obviously the costs of building the houses and land would differ, but it would create a boon for local economies around our green and pleasant.

Because of recent cuts to services and therefore jobs, instead of an increased tax income, revenue remains flat and the national defecit doesn't get lower.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
elgrande Flag bedford 03 Oct 16 4.15pm Send a Private Message to elgrande Add elgrande as a friend

Originally posted by nickgusset

I do mate, had we started investing in housing and the infrastructure that goes with it it would have created a lot more jobs which would in turn increased tax revenue and put money into the economy when people spent their hard earned.

A hypothetical scenario...

Interest rates are incredibly low. 3 or 4 years ago the government were paying around 2.3 percent on 15 year loans. A loan (based on these interest rates ) of £1billion would cost £24.3 million a year on repayments.

If the loan were invested in building social housing, which in the north west would cost somewhere in the region of £120k per house, the money could be spent on 8300 houses. If they were then let out at an affordable rent-somewhere between social housing and market rent) the average return would be around £5.5k per house per year. That's a return of £46 million a year roughly. That covers the interest payments on the initial loan leaves a surplus of around £21.5m per year which over 15 years is a surplus of £322.5 million.
Add in inflation, say a conservative 2% a year, in 15 years time the £1 billion will be worth about 30% less than it is today.

If people are coming off benefits to take up jobs building the housesthere is additional benefit. If we take an average yearly benefit payment of £5,200 a year (£100 a week)is saved. If the average wage is around £22 k the same person would pay around 33.5k in tax and NI, giving a benefit to the public of £8.7k a year (benefit savings + tax and NI income)

If 500 people were used to build the houses, using the rough figures above it brings in savings and tax incomes of £4.35 million a year. As I've said these people would also spend their hard earned on goods and services, the supplers of which will also benefit, perhaps expand taking on more people, make more money so pay more tax.

Also, the suppliers of the materials to build the houses would benefit, and again this increases their profits and leads to more tax paid.

The initial billion borrowed for investment would actually be worth a lot more to the economy in the long run.

If this were to be repeated around the country, obviously the costs of building the houses and land would differ, but it would create a boon for local economies around our green and pleasant.

Because of recent cuts to services and therefore jobs, instead of an increased tax income, revenue remains flat and the national defecit doesn't get lower.

Yeah that's all very well nick,bt you need builders to build houses there is a certain skill set needed.
You can't just take
people off benefits and give them a trowel and say there you go.
I know loads and loads of builders,not one of them is out of work.
What we need are more apprentice builders,instead of the last 20 years or so saying kids should all go to university.
Not everyone is academic in fact half the people who are there now probably shouldn't be there.

 


always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Stuk Flag Top half 03 Oct 16 4.24pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Originally posted by elgrande

Yeah that's all very well nick,bt you need builders to build houses there is a certain skill set needed.
You can't just take
people off benefits and give them a trowel and say there you go.
I know loads and loads of builders,not one of them is out of work.
What we need are more apprentice builders,instead of the last 20 years or so saying kids should all go to university.
Not everyone is academic in fact half the people who are there now probably shouldn't be there.

What we need is less red tape to get into the building trade and to abolish the levy on employing people in construction.

Anyone can work on a car without a qualification or a levy on the labour, but if you want to paint a wall on a building site you've got to have card to prove it and will be charged a percent of the labour cost in a levy (tax).

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Lyons550 Flag Shirley 03 Oct 16 4.24pm Send a Private Message to Lyons550 Add Lyons550 as a friend

Originally posted by nickgusset

I do mate, had we started investing in housing and the infrastructure that goes with it it would have created a lot more jobs which would in turn increased tax revenue and put money into the economy when people spent their hard earned.

A hypothetical scenario...

Interest rates are incredibly low. 3 or 4 years ago the government were paying around 2.3 percent on 15 year loans. A loan (based on these interest rates ) of £1billion would cost £24.3 million a year on repayments.

If the loan were invested in building social housing, which in the north west would cost somewhere in the region of £120k per house, the money could be spent on 8300 houses. If they were then let out at an affordable rent-somewhere between social housing and market rent) the average return would be around £5.5k per house per year. That's a return of £46 million a year roughly. That covers the interest payments on the initial loan leaves a surplus of around £21.5m per year which over 15 years is a surplus of £322.5 million.
Add in inflation, say a conservative 2% a year, in 15 years time the £1 billion will be worth about 30% less than it is today.

If people are coming off benefits to take up jobs building the housesthere is additional benefit. If we take an average yearly benefit payment of £5,200 a year (£100 a week)is saved. If the average wage is around £22 k the same person would pay around 33.5k in tax and NI, giving a benefit to the public of £8.7k a year (benefit savings + tax and NI income)

If 500 people were used to build the houses, using the rough figures above it brings in savings and tax incomes of £4.35 million a year. As I've said these people would also spend their hard earned on goods and services, the supplers of which will also benefit, perhaps expand taking on more people, make more money so pay more tax.

Also, the suppliers of the materials to build the houses would benefit, and again this increases their profits and leads to more tax paid.

The initial billion borrowed for investment would actually be worth a lot more to the economy in the long run.

If this were to be repeated around the country, obviously the costs of building the houses and land would differ, but it would create a boon for local economies around our green and pleasant.

Because of recent cuts to services and therefore jobs, instead of an increased tax income, revenue remains flat and the national defecit doesn't get lower.

Have to disagree...we're now in a better financial state then we were back then (even though its still a dire one) and we'd simply be in far worse debt than we are now with a number of the projects started back then potentially coming to fruition end by the time we pull out of the EU...we'd have lost momentum rather than gearing it up...I think most on here are in agreement that now is the right time to release the schackles so to speak though.

For me its all about timing and this is just right to address/head off BREXIT in whatever form it takes rather than having done what you've suggested a few years back and then be left with no plan B...(now where have I heard that before?)

Edited by Lyons550 (03 Oct 2016 4.27pm)

 


The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 03 Oct 16 4.39pm

Originally posted by elgrande

Yeah that's all very well nick,bt you need builders to build houses there is a certain skill set needed.
You can't just take
people off benefits and give them a trowel and say there you go.
I know loads and loads of builders,not one of them is out of work.
What we need are more apprentice builders,instead of the last 20 years or so saying kids should all go to university.
Not everyone is academic in fact half the people who are there now probably shouldn't be there
.

Bingo. University education shouldn't really be aimed at 'getting people into entry level jobs' for private companies.

Focus should be on corporations and enterprises providing professional training courses and apprenticeships. What really disturbs me is that the best candidates in IT I've seen in recent years have usually been either postgrads or apprentices - The ones coming in through Communications in Business and IT style degrees tend to be rather poor (i.e. not business, computer engineering or science degrees)

Most of these poor f**kers have spent 28k to get their own 25-35k a year job. Might as well have done media studies for all the applicability. In fact I think at least two companies I've worked for essentially use graduate degrees to filter out 'high grade candidates' (i.e. they'll only take people with a 1st class degree and then train them for three years).


 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply

  

Page 252 of 464 < 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Jeremy Corbyn