Earl Aelfheah

When I first moved over the hill from Camberwell, one of the first things I witnessed on Lordship Lane was a child having a full on melt down, screaming "I WANT A BABYCHINO!". It was one of those 'we not in Kansas anymore' moments.

...with shrieks of 'fake news' directed at Corbyn.

May's just u-turned on social care.

The cash only policy wasn't great. Kind of kills 'spur of the moment' / spontaneous pop ins.

this Tories government have caused us to crash out of Europe and with a mother term will no doubt oversee the break up of the UK. History will judge how 'strong and stable' they've been for the country. Our kids are going to be poorer and have fewer opportunities than we did.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Where's the cost of Brexit in that list? Labour > aren't reversing it so the ?60bn that's been > quoted by Hammond needs to be accounted for > somehow... The Conservatives figures were much more thorough. Except of course they didn't have any.

'I like Corbyn's policies but how is he going to pay for it'

Although... I do think this forum could usefully merge with the West Dulwich one to cover the wider Dulwich area. Having a separate East and West Dulwich forum does seems a little parochial.

The Conservative manifesto leaves little wiggle room when it comes to Brexit - it makes it clear that the UK will leave the customs union as well as the single market. Again setting an arbitrary and repeatedly missed target to bring down immigration to under a hundred thousand is just stupid, with the commitment to make it more difficult for International students to come and study in the UK being particularly self defeating. International students bring billions into the UK economy and are a great source of future UK 'soft power' in the world. The insistence on expanding selective schooling, despite evidence that it does nothing to promote social mobility is just an example of poor, dogmatic policy making. All in all, it's rather depressing. I cannot see how any of this is going to promote an outward looking, meritocratic, 'Global Britain'.

Making it more difficult to recruit international students is completely dumb and self defeating. The only possible reason I can see for it is xenophobia. I would love to hear why others think it could be a good idea though.

"No politician in history...has been treated worse or more unfairly". He actually, literally, said this. In a speech. In real life. Not as a joke. Without irony. Honestly. This happened.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 50s? More Victorian era... 1850's perhaps?

Labour it is suggested, would 'take us back to the 1970's' with renationalisations. The Tories on the other hand, would prefer the 1950's with grammar schools and fox hunting and girls jobs and boys jobs.

... and he manifesto http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/manifesto2017

Here's the funding statement: http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/Images/manifesto-2017/Funding%20Britain%27s%20Future.PDF

I believe they're talking about bringing services into public ownership at the end of the existing franchises and that the services will bring money back into the exchequer (as with the east coast line). The borrowing is for a ?250 billion fund for investment in infrastructure ? transport, energy systems, communications ? scientic research, and housing.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The failed economics of the 70s or more recently > France but still people fall for the free lunch > guff Nothings free. The manifesto suggests raising money from increases in taxation and borrowing against investments.

...although 'the better off' means the wealthiest 5% to be precise.

It pretty difficult to sit and read a book or have a picnic in local parks now without getting bothered by dogs. I've on more than one occasion had my picnic turned over by out of control canines. It irritating and often the owners (who inappropriately personify their pooches, are quite unapologetic... "they are just trying to say hello". Really? You think?) It seems perfectly reasonable to ask for dogs to be kept on a lead in a grave yard imo. This isn't 'anti dog'. Dogs are not equal citizens and whilst it's great to own a pet, you've no right to impose on others. Keep your dog under control, pick up its sh*t and don't expect it to be able to tear around wherever it's wants regardless of other people and everyone will be cool.

Red routes are under the control of TfL others, Southwark. I agree they should all be open to motorcycles.

Trying to use this forum to advertise your own, rip off one, is kind of a dick move if I may say so.

BBC's Ian Watson's analysis of Labour's manifesto: "At its core are three interlinked arguments: First that austerity holds back - rather than helps - economic growth, so Labour would borrow billions for investment. Second, that the better off - not necessarily the fabulously wealthy - along with many businesses should pay more in tax to meet the day to day cost of providing public services. And third, that more regulation - and in some cases re-nationalisation - would ensure businesses operated in the interests both of consumers and the wider economy. Those close to Jeremy Corbyn believe this programme places Labour not on the far left of politics but in the mainstream of northern European social democratic thinking. But the Labour manifesto will break with what's often known as the Anglo-Saxon economic model of lower taxation and flexible labour markets and in doing so, the party is distancing itself not just from the Conservatives but from its New Labour predecessor too." Sounds about right.

It will be intersting to see the final document, fully costed (apparently). Potentially some interesting stuff in there.