8 June

[rendelharris]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I actually like the manifesto - but as Sky said

> this morning - costings.

>

> and if the Tories feel threatened wait for the

> personal attacks.

We'll see, they have promised they'll release cost. The press reaction (particularly that of the Murdoch press) can be explained by one line: ?We will implement the recommendations of part one of the Leveson inquiry and commence part two.?

[malumbu]

You could also argue UKIP do/did this - have some

nice policies that many in the street would like. In the knowledge that they will never be in power to deliver.

So folks - two choices back to the 50s with the Tories - where collective memory is very rosy, but it wasn't all great. Or to the 70s with Labour where we had the opposite - most think times were bad but there were a lot of good things too.

Or for me a Hermit's cave

[miga]

The ideas are great, I love how riled up the Telegraph was this morning. Public views on politics have changed, but this is closer as a Lab set of promises to core Lab values than they've been for a long time. Implementation is suspect, and as an org they're in chaos, but the promises are nice.

[Jeremy]

Well yes.. of course they're "nice" ideas!

But they might as well promise a Hyperloop tunnel to New York. Or replacing polluting cars with unicorn-pulled carriages. They're never going to have to worry about actually implementing or funding any of it.

[rendelharris]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well yes.. of course they're "nice" ideas!

>

> But they might as well promise a Hyperloop tunnel

> to New York. Or replacing polluting cars with

> unicorn-pulled carriages. They're never going to

> have to worry about actually implementing or

> funding any of it.

But they're not promising anything pie in the sky. What they're offering (bearing in mind all we've seen thus far is a leaked draft) is enhanced spending on public services and infrastructure paid for by tax increases for the wealthy and an increase in corporation tax (one which, incidentally, would only put us on a par with Japan and Germany and still way lower than the USA). Maybe the costings will add up, maybe they won't, let's wait and see. But the way the rightwing media have torn into this one would imagine Labour have decided to invest our entire revenue into a mission to send the first manned mission to Mars rather than propose a relatively modest increase in NHS spending etc. I haven't seen people tearing into Mrs.May asking her how the devil she expects to fufil any of her promises while pulling the UK out of the single market, but Labour propose a set of policies which are generally in line with what the public support and it's portrayed as the introduction of communism to the UK.

I'm no Corybinista - I wish he'd never happened - but he could have come up with the most genius set of policies for the country ever and the press would still have torn him a new one as they are doing at present. It stinks.

[Borky]

The Costing solution is easy. Stupid cat owners aside, I grant the rest you enough intelligence to work this one for yourselves. nations do not run like household budgets, but you know that. Debt has never been cheaper. But you know that. Invariably this will push this thread into some awful keynsian undergrad common room chat. Dont be tempted.

What is important is that the topics have been raised. In a fair and just world they would be given consideration and be the subject of discussion. I am no supporter of the LP however, let us be clear on that.

But Corbyn

But Yes

But no

/ends

[Otta]

I think this is quite a balanced look at things.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39883084

The bit about railways is interesting. It shows that actually it can work and work well to have it in public hands, and gives a recent example of how it has worked well here in the UK.

He then spoils it with silly promises, not least halting driverless trains, which is both halting progress, and sucking up to unions.

[Jules-and-Boo]

Everyone is so anti Corbyn that the Tory's are getting away with absolute murder while everyone's looking at him instead.

It's called diversion and conditioning. Since when has poltics been about people and not the policies.

It boils down to investment in social infrastructure funded by tax on corps and high incomes or no investmnent and more cuts to the vulnerable and corps getting away with not paying tax.

but of course, the former is Corbyn and we can't possibly have any inclination to agree to anything he says because it's personal now.

The leak could of course be a fantastic plan and not an accident at all.....

[Otta]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Since when

> has poltics been about people and not the

> policies.

>

Since Maggie probably.

> It boils down to investment in social

> infrastructure funded by tax on corps and high

> incomes or no investmnent and more cuts to the

> vulnerable and corps getting away with not paying

> tax.

I think people are unsure of the math. And it's down to Labour to have costed it all pretty well. We shall see.

> The leak could of course be a fantastic plan and

> not an accident at all.....

Quite likely IMO.

I'll still be voting Labour BTW. New candidate in my area, proper local lass.

[dbboy]

Feels like they want to take the country back a few decades and bust the country as a result. Some people will be taken in by all Corbyn wants to achieve but ignore the even greater debt that will result. but by then they would have become ousted and someone else will have to clear up his mess. By then he'll be long gone.

[miga]

Costings. What will Brexit cost and who brought it about?

Manifestos. Who very recently crapped all over theirs?

Nationalising railways. What benefit of the pseudo-market do commuters and taxpayers of Greater London on Thameslink or Southern get from the current model?

Sure, manifestos are full of unicorns, but another unicorn is that with storms on the horizon, the Tories bring about sensible governance and stability. That's not been what I've seen since 2010.

[Jules-and-Boo]

if you're going to fuss about the details for one side you need to look at the maths for the tories too.

or as yourself why you're not.

[rendelharris]

dbboy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Feels like they want to take the country back a

> few decades and bust the country as a result. Some

> people will be taken in by all Corbyn wants to

> achieve but ignore the even greater debt that will

> result. but by then they would have become ousted

> and someone else will have to clear up his mess.

> By then he'll be long gone.

You do know that Cameron/Osborne borrowed ?555 billion between 2010 and 2016, while Labour borrowed ?430 billion in the previous thirteen years? The current Labour plans involve ?250 billion of investment over ten years, not all of which will come from borrowing. So less than half the borrowing over ten years than the Tories managed in six while imposing austerity.

[Jules-and-Boo]

It is true the Tories borrowed more.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/

if we're going to be objective....

[Loz]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It is true the Tories borrowed more.

>

> if we're going to be objective....

Oh dear. Richard Murphy is the king of dodgy numbers. Take this doozy...

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2010/05/17/the-only-way-to-cut-government-debt-is-to-increase-government-spending-2/

Here he argues that giving a newly unemployed private sector person a made-up public sector job is pretty much cost free. The first person commenting spots the major error straight away, but Murphy soldiers on. There are quite a few more minor mistakes as well, like including child benefit on one side, but not the other. This article seemed to make a disappearance from his site for a few years. I am rather pleased it is back.

He is also the man behind the original, infamous 'huge tax gap' calculation. Here he takes the cunning route of taking HMRC numbers and multiplying them by various random numbers and coming up with a really big number.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2014/09/22/new-report-the-tax-gap-is-119-4-billion-and-rising/

Frankly, I wouldn't trust him calling out numbers in a church hall bingo game. "And the next number is ... two little ducks... forty three thousand two hundred and eighty six"

[Loz]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You do know that Cameron/Osborne borrowed ?555 billion between 2010 and 2016, while Labour

> borrowed ?430 billion in the previous thirteen years?

This is true, though it is also worth noting that Labour borrowed ?230m of that ?430m in the last two years of their term.

[rendelharris]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > You do know that Cameron/Osborne borrowed ?555

> billion between 2010 and 2016, while Labour

> > borrowed ?430 billion in the previous thirteen

> years?

>

> This is true, though it is also worth noting that

> Labour borrowed ?230m of that ?430m in the last

> two years of their term.

Indeed (billions you mean, obviously), though a lot of that was for bank bailouts post-2008 crash. So in their first eleven years they borrowed less than ?20bn per year, while the austerity belt-tightening Tories borrowed nearly ?100bn a year in their first six years.

[miga]

I think whoever thought they'd be doing Corbyn a disservice by leaking the manifesto scored an own goal.

[Borky]

Now we have access to the internet,we are all economists. Everybody is an expert and can back it up with someone elses numbers. gaze upon the wonder of my google search and bow down before my obvious expertise. Sickening . Economics was SO last century grandad, move on.

At least some posters have opened the discussion that focuses on ideas. Visionaries.

[Borky]

miga Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think whoever thought they'd be doing Corbyn a

> disservice by leaking the manifesto scored an own

> goal.

I would go along with this. maybe it is a double double bluff - I am not a LP member BTW. Whatever, it has brought discussion of policy back into the conversation, despite the best efforts of the fourth estate to keep this GE policy free.

[rendelharris]

Borky Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Now we have access to the internet,we are all

> economists. Everybody is an expert and can back it

> up with someone elses numbers. gaze upon the

> wonder of my google search and bow down before my

> obvious expertise. Sickening . Economics was SO

> last century grandad, move on.

>

> At least some posters have opened the discussion

> that focuses on ideas. Visionaries.

As opposed to flapping your gums about how superior you are to other people of course. Your trolling really is so low quality, others say that before you were thrown off here under another name you were quite funny, what went wrong?

[Borky]

When I wish to talk to you, i will address you by name.

[rendelharris]

Borky Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> When I wish to talk to you, i will address you by

> name.

QED. Low quality, pointless, sad.

[TheCat]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > It is true the Tories borrowed more.

> >

> > if we're going to be objective....

>

> Oh dear. Richard Murphy is the king of dodgy

> numbers. Take this doozy...

>

> http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2010/05/17/the-

> only-way-to-cut-government-debt-is-to-increase-gov

> ernment-spending-2/

>

> Here he argues that giving a newly unemployed

> private sector person a made-up public sector job

> is pretty much cost free. The first person

> commenting spots the major error straight away,

> but Murphy soldiers on. There are quite a few more

> minor mistakes as well, like including child

> benefit on one side, but not the other. This

> article seemed to make a disappearance from his

> site for a few years. I am rather pleased it is

> back.

>

> He is also the man behind the original, infamous

> 'huge tax gap' calculation. Here he takes the

> cunning route of taking HMRC numbers and

> multiplying them by various random numbers and

> coming up with a really big number.

>

> http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2014/09/22/new-

> report-the-tax-gap-is-119-4-billion-and-rising/

>

> Frankly, I wouldn't trust him calling out numbers

> in a church hall bingo game. "And the next number

> is ... two little ducks... forty three thousand

> two hundred and eighty six"

Yep...I lost a little faith in his analysis when in the comments for the original article, he accused an Actuary (who was making a reasonable point) of 'having no idea about statistics'...I'm guessing he doesn't know what an actuary is...

[DulwichFox]

Corbyn will Scrap tuition fees..* Privatise the railways.. more money for the NHS

Free school dinners.. amongst many other things

* Estimates for the cost of scrapping tuition fees range between ?7bn and ?11bn.

* ?5.6bn on 'NHS for education'

Anyone concerned about how this will be paid for should relax..

Diane Abbott has done the maths and advised the Chancellor of the Exchequer there is no problem.

DulwichFox