Voting for Jeremy Corbyn - the political equivalent of buying a Harley Davidson

Maryeliza did correct herself the next post she wrote.
Is that not allowed?
Personally I think it's rather ridiculous to make fun of someone who has corrected herself. Just showing yourself up.

I hope the Daily Mail writers are going to be careful what they say tomorrow.
What was the ratio - 14 pages of anti-Corbyn polemic gives him an extra ten percent votes?

Fair play GGMK2, it's only fair that actual words from a recognised language are used to explain an opinion, don't you agree?

I watched the speech, GracesGran, with my grandson, although he gave up after an hour. Not bad for him.

Excellent speech, definitely ready for power, as all these Guardian commentators seem to think.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/27/jeremy-corbyn-conference-speech-verdict-panel-guardian

Oh, goodness, the language police are back. I better leave this thread for a while as I am sure to make a mistake.

hybolic there is no such word listed in the Oxford English Dictionary. it's a made up word to support a made up theory perhaps. When in doubt, blind them with words you've just made up.

They are 'scrutinized' gillybob, by Ofsted . That is a government department which is doing their job as the government asked them to do it.

I could also walk up and down Downing Street with a poster that says “Tell me how you measure me and I will tell you how I will behave. If you measure me in an illogical way… do not complain about illogical behavior…”

This government understands, as did Oscar Wilde's cynic, " ... the price of everything, and the value of nothing.", particularly when it comes to the services they should be providing for the nation.

giily s post was very hybolic, I think it deserved a somewhat hybolic response

Maryeliza does say it twice so it must be a word with which I am unfamiliar. My command of the English language is somewhat lacking of late, so that might explain it.

Yes, I have heard of "hyperbolic" Primrose but never "hybolic" ?

Hyperbolic maybe gilly?
Did you give someone the benefit of your opinion?

party conference speeches are largely for the party faithful and not the punter at large

I have to agree with that whitewave

Oh and before I forget can anyone tell my what "hybolic" means?

Apparently my post was "it" but I'm at a total loss

No! I haven't had the chance yet gg as I've been out to lunch all afternoon and DH has grabbed the tv since I've been home. Did catch a glimpse on the news and the remarks seemed generally very good and it seems to have been well received.

I was talking today to my lunch time friend and we agreed that party conference speeches are largely for the party faithful and not the punter at large.

I thought Barnum statements were vague statements about personality. Perhaps they have been adopted for other things.

This isn't just a question of companies taking money from other companies GGM2. Any organisation that is given huge amounts of government money (effectively tax payers money) should be scrutinized in order to ensure that they are;

a) providing the services for which they are being paid.
b) providing the services at an acceptable level.

I would love to tell you about our "training provider" but this is a public forum. Suffice to say though that having brought the subject up at one of the manufacturing forums I attend our experiences are far from unusual.

Some examples...

1) mentor not coming to appointments as arranged.
2) mentor missing 4 appointments then asking someone (not qualified to do so) to sign his sheets to " keep him right"
3) mentor signing college forms off when trainee didn't attend.
4) mentor making up reports (this has only just come to light) saying he has witnessed activities when he absolutely hasn't.

I could go on and on....

As this is a Corbyn thread did anyone else see his speech. It was long but it didn't feel as if a word was wasted. Mind you it always takes me a couple of days to get my head round it.

The dreaded Jo Coburn spoiled the end (well, the beginning as well). Not only does she always look as if she has swallowed a wasp - she is so annoyed with those she interviews if they don't come out with what she expected/wants. We get plenty of discussion in the 24 hour news and the daily politics programmes at lunch-time and in the evening. Why not just let us watch and make our own minds up initially. No doubt she will be around next week at the Conservative Conference, but I would guess not feeling so annoyed.

No ww I understand your point.

Making Barnum statements like 'labour should be supported' or 'education for life' is easy. What does it mean and how does it work?

Perhaps if the government hadn't stripped the money out of the FE colleges but used them properly we wouldn't be worrying about companies taking hundreds of thousand from other companies.

She has always been pro the work FE colleges do but left because of the state the government has left them in. It is to do with money but far more to do with not feeling appreciated while the work is just piled higher and higher. If you have real issues with this just ask your wonderful government why they set the colleges up to fail instead of improve over time when we had that time.

Labour (not the political party) is an asset to this country but we cannot halt technology. Failing to move with the times means we will be left behind. We can't go back to the way things were done in the 60's and 70's. Robots and automation are the future and so are the brilliant minds who design, build and program them.

Really GGMk2 ? I wonder how she would view the "training provider" we are stuck with use? Not very highly I would imagine.

I think there need to be very tight regulations put in place for some of these companies who take hundreds of thousands of £'s from tax payers and employers to "train" young people and do not provide the service for which they are being very well paid.

primrose you missed my point. I argue that labour should be seen as an asset of the country, Just as industry, services etc are. Just as government supports industry and services with tax breaks, subsidies etc, so should labour be supported, and should be seen as part of the equation.

I think the whole apprenticeship scheme needs a giant shake up. Too many (so called) training providers coining the money in at the expense of tax payers and employers.

Mmm. My daughter works for a training company providing the higher (degree) level apprenticeships (they offer all levels). It is true that there are some poor companies but over all the difficulties lie with the government - who have taken far too long to realise that apprenticeships should be delivered at the sort of level the do in Germany and the employers, some of whom seem not always to have got the idea that they are part of the whole.

Because of the level she works at she actually works with some really good and engaged companies - the others need to get their acts together and so do the government. Done properly there would be no room for poor training companies.

So what stops people educating themselves now? So much is available on the internet for free.
How would free educational sites work in the future? Would they be taxed? Are they putting 'real teachers' out of work?

I think part of the problem is I cannot see how this would work in the 'real world'.

Yes I agree gg I think this is where education for life which is what Corbyn talks about comes in. We must use our assets (people) sensibly and ensure that it is fit for future employment.

Should we ban computers, go back to ledgers and pens? letters not emails would mean massive increase in number of jobs for postmen.

Who, other than you, has suggested that AB. Of course we have to move forward but personally - and you are totally at liberty to disagree - I do not want one half of our population to end up starving because the other half is benefiting and getting richer.