FlyTheNest

RogerOThornhill wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Did they say the same thing about John Major when he stayed for the full length of the 1997-2001 parliament?

Oh of course...not.

RogerOThornhill wrote:Corbyn will be pushing 71 at the time of the next election.

Just sayin'...

ohsocynical wrote:

RogerOThornhill wrote:Corbyn will be pushing 71 at the time of the next election.

Just sayin'...

From experience, being 71 doesn't put you over the hill. You might huff and puff a bit but as long as he can get the party back on the right track and perhaps [please God] give us a win it doesn't have to be for the long haul...

And sorry, but I don't think youngsters [as compared to myself] have made such a good job of it.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:I see that some Tory MPs are talking about city schools being overfunded. They've got a point about London which has been turned around, but Birmingham won't fancy a load of cuts.

The pupil premium's got to be in the line of fire too.

RogerOThornhill wrote:

ohsocynical wrote:

RogerOThornhill wrote:Corbyn will be pushing 71 at the time of the next election.

Just sayin'...

From experience, being 71 doesn't put you over the hill. You might huff and puff a bit but as long as he can get the party back on the right track and perhaps [please God] give us a win it doesn't have to be for the long haul...

And sorry, but I don't think youngsters [as compared to myself] have made such a good job of it.

Sorry didn't mean to offend and I hesitated before I posted but...would the electorate go for someone in their 70s?

We've got used to candidates in their 40s and faced with a candidate some years older and past retirement age might be too much.

I also think he might have some ideological baggage from the 80s that will be used against him.

Don't get me wrong - it's great that he's standing as it seems to be the only way of getting a left position talked about but actually electing him as leader? Not sure.

RogerOThornhill wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:I see that some Tory MPs are talking about city schools being overfunded. They've got a point about London which has been turned around, but Birmingham won't fancy a load of cuts.

The pupil premium's got to be in the line of fire too.

Yes, there's three questions on the card for the first session of Education questions on Monday - this is something they failed to sort out last time and simply patched it up. Now they've got to clear up their own mess...time to blame Labour again I guess.

ohsocynical wrote:Mrs VB ‏@MrsVB 7 mins7 minutes ago

#COR Blimey Mary Creagh has pulled out of the Labour leadership race. Even less choice now. #ComeOnCorbyn

George Osborne’s plan to enshrine permanent budget surpluses in law is a political gimmick that ignores “basic economics”, a group of academic economists has warned .

Responding to the chancellor’s Mansion House speech earlier this week, they said a law forcing the government to cut spending or raise taxes every year to generate a budget surplus would suck the economy dry and within a few years could trigger another credit crunch.

In a letter to the Guardian, coordinated by the Centre for Labour and Social Studies, 77 of the bestknown academic economists, including French economist Thomas Piketty and Cambridge professor Ha-Joon Chang, said the chancellor was turning a blind eye to the complexities of a 21st-century economy that demanded governments remain flexible and responsive to changing global events.

But, in a first blow to his plan, the OBR said it would be for parliament to devise a definition, while its boss Robert Chote described the plan as “ambitious”

RogerOThornhill wrote:Oh dear...

Academics attack George Osborne budget surplus proposal

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... s-proposal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

George Osborne’s plan to enshrine permanent budget surpluses in law is a political gimmick that ignores “basic economics”, a group of academic economists has warned .

Responding to the chancellor’s Mansion House speech earlier this week, they said a law forcing the government to cut spending or raise taxes every year to generate a budget surplus would suck the economy dry and within a few years could trigger another credit crunch.

In a letter to the Guardian, coordinated by the Centre for Labour and Social Studies, 77 of the bestknown academic economists, including French economist Thomas Piketty and Cambridge professor Ha-Joon Chang, said the chancellor was turning a blind eye to the complexities of a 21st-century economy that demanded governments remain flexible and responsive to changing global events.

and that bit about Osborne giving the OBR the job of deciding what was 'normal'?

But, in a first blow to his plan, the OBR said it would be for parliament to devise a definition, while its boss Robert Chote described the plan as “ambitious”

They were never going to like that - that's a very political decision.

I love that Chote very-Yes Prime Ministerial "ambitious" - translates as "it's rubbish and will never work"

citizenJA wrote:

RogerOThornhill wrote:Oh dear...

Academics attack George Osborne budget surplus proposal

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... s-proposal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

George Osborne’s plan to enshrine permanent budget surpluses in law is a political gimmick that ignores “basic economics”, a group of academic economists has warned .

Responding to the chancellor’s Mansion House speech earlier this week, they said a law forcing the government to cut spending or raise taxes every year to generate a budget surplus would suck the economy dry and within a few years could trigger another credit crunch.

In a letter to the Guardian, coordinated by the Centre for Labour and Social Studies, 77 of the bestknown academic economists, including French economist Thomas Piketty and Cambridge professor Ha-Joon Chang, said the chancellor was turning a blind eye to the complexities of a 21st-century economy that demanded governments remain flexible and responsive to changing global events.

and that bit about Osborne giving the OBR the job of deciding what was 'normal'?

But, in a first blow to his plan, the OBR said it would be for parliament to devise a definition, while its boss Robert Chote described the plan as “ambitious”

They were never going to like that - that's a very political decision.

I love that Chote very-Yes Prime Ministerial "ambitious" - translates as "it's rubbish and will never work"

Yep. I've been reading the contributions below the line. Lots of Tory supporters or slaves or whatever the hell they are making as much sense as Jeffrey.

'He's been elected! You can't deny he's been elected!'

No, no one's denying that busta hasn't been returned to government. Tory Chancellor Jeff has been in the driver's seat for over five years & continues failure economic policy ideas one after the other. His latest idea forced the OBR to declare the White Queen is off his head.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Good point made there about private sector debt.

The Plan A envisaged very big increases in personal debt to drive the growth.

Ageing UK population will increase strain on public spending, OBR warns

The financial cost of Britain’s ageing population will require a fresh £20bn wave of spending cuts or tax increases from 2020 to bring the national debt back to pre-recession levels in 50 years time, the government’s public finances watchdog has said.

Long-term projections by the Office for Budget Responsibility show that the second round of austerity due to be detailed by George Osborne in next month’s budget will not be sufficient to reduce debt to 40% of national income – its level before the economy entered its deepest postwar slump.

The OBR said that by 2065, 26% of the population of England and Wales would be more than 65 years old, up from 18% today, increasing the cost of pensions, health and social care.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... -obr-warns" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

citizenJA wrote: The NAO have released some Social Care reports recently too.

http://www.nao.org.uk/report/care-act-f ... e-reforms/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.nao.org.uk/report/local-gove ... w-burdens/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

StephenDolan wrote:Evening all.

After a holiday away from t'Internet and social media I've returned to see my Labour Party membership has arrived. Let's hope I don't bin it too soon. Can't say I'm too enamoured with the Cooper and Burnham etc text messages and emails.

Hobiejoe wrote:Sir Simon Hughes.

For services to oleaginous bigotry, one presumes. The straight choice for a knighthood.