Jeremy Corbyn's Labour

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I liked a lot of the content, which is no surprise as I consider myself a socialist. I didn't like that we were so dishonest though. There was really no reason to be. Saying that it was costed when our costings were so obviously not true. Then not including stuff like nationalisations which we'd pledged to do but not costed.

There's also a wider issue about honesty which is about taxation and popularism. The kind of public services that we have now, never mind extended ones and further expenditure, can't be paid for just by taxing 'the rich' or 'the top 5%'. That's a fact. So I am very disappointed that we didn't come out and say that if people want stuff they have to pay for it. Want a world class NHS fit for the 21st century? then everyone has to pay for it and it is a price well worth paying. Our failure to do that disappointed me

to be fair Labour and the LibDems had very little warning that a manifesto would need to be pulled together asap rather than mulled over for another 3 years as was expected / the law. I didn't really pay much attention to the LibDem one tbh as I was more interested in who would form a government, but the Labour manifesto achieved on many levels - it had policies that would make real changes and it made a broad attempt to explain the funding and it was almost uniform in its backing within the party. Given the time they had to do this its not surprising that funding would include various assumptions but every policy was at least given an income source even if some black holes would potentially occur. That was much more comprehensive than the Tory manifesto and they will have known of their intention to call an election early. Whilst the vast majority of their manifesto did not survive as far as the Queen's Speech the billion to the DUP is something that has materialised and actually happening and the only explanation given for the source of that funding is 'a growing economy'.

Given the usual amount of time to create a manifesto it could have been tightened up a lot, but I don't think we should fall into the trap of being over critical of a document that contains very positive ideas to improve the way our nation operates - compared to the other main party's offer we really should be grateful that we were given something progressive to rally around.

 

[londonblue]

Not my understanding.Why would the EU measure their respective GDP's in a foreign currency?

Because this isn't an EU thing, it's a worldwide thing.

BTW: wrong video.

 

[londonblue]

to be fair Labour and the LibDems had very little warning that a manifesto would need to be pulled together asap rather than mulled over for another 3 years as was expected / the law. I didn't really pay much attention to the LibDem one tbh as I was more interested in who would form a government, but the Labour manifesto achieved on many levels - it had policies that would make real changes and it made a broad attempt to explain the funding and it was almost uniform in its backing within the party. Given the time they had to do this its not surprising that funding would include various assumptions but every policy was at least given an income source even if some black holes would potentially occur. That was much more comprehensive than the Tory manifesto and they will have known of their intention to call an election early. Whilst the vast majority of their manifesto did not survive as far as the Queen's Speech the billion to the DUP is something that has materialised and actually happening and the only explanation given for the source of that funding is 'a growing economy'.

Given the usual amount of time to create a manifesto it could have been tightened up a lot, but I don't think we should fall into the trap of being over critical of a document that contains very positive ideas to improve the way our nation operates - compared to the other main party's offer we really should be grateful that we were given something progressive to rally around.

You seriously saying all parties had been sitting on their arses, and not ensuring they were prepared? Shame on the lot of them.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

You seriously saying all parties had been sitting on their arses, and not ensuring they were prepared? Shame on the lot of them.

you are familiar with the Tory manifesto - the prep on that looks like it took about 10 mins and things like the 'dementia tax' some cabinet members were as surprised as the rest of us when that was included.

 

[londonblue]

you are familiar with the Tory manifesto - the prep on that looks like it took about 10 mins and things like the 'dementia tax' some cabinet members were as surprised as the rest of us when that was included.

Stop side-tracking. You said the other parties didn't have time. Just because the tories did a bad job doesn't excuse the other parties lack of preparedness. Using the argument that they weren't expecting it is poor. They should make sure they are ready, a manifesto should be a working document that is constantly updated and is therefore ready whenever it is needed (with a few minor tweaks). If ********* can't even manage that after about 2 years in charge he really is as clueless as he comes over.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Stop side-tracking. You said the other parties didn't have time. Just because the tories did a bad job doesn't excuse the other parties lack of preparedness. Using the argument that they weren't expecting it is poor. They should make sure they are ready, a manifesto should be a working document that is constantly updated and is therefore ready whenever it is needed (with a few minor tweaks). If ********* can't even manage that after about 2 years in charge he really is as clueless as he comes over.

In an election comparing the parties is exactly what you are expected to do.

If ********* is Corbyn then he managed to produce a manifesto that was packed with policies and the costing of it was far more comprehensive than that of the party who called the election but maybe May never had any intention of acting on the policies she put to the nation.
The increase in polling for Labour that followed through to a much better than expected election result was largely due to the manifesto.


Which policies in the Labour manifesto do you disapprove of?

 

[londonblue]

In an election comparing the parties is exactly what you are expected to do.

If ********* is Corbyn then he managed to produce a manifesto that was packed with policies and the costing of it was far more comprehensive than that of the party who called the election but maybe May never had any intention of acting on the policies she put to the nation.
The increase in polling for Labour that followed through to a much better than expected election result was largely due to the manifesto.


Which policies in the Labour manifesto do you disapprove of?

But even members of the party, and IFS agree it wasn't costed. For the record, at least they made a (poor) effort to cost things. But you made the comment they didn't have enough time. I hope that is just your view, and not the party line because it's a very poor argument.

I didn't read the manifesto because I'm not voting labour whilst ********* is in charge.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

But even members of the party, and IFS agree it wasn't costed. For the record, at least they made a (poor effort) to cost things. But you made the comment they didn't have enough time. I hope that is just your view, and not the party line because it's a very poor argument.

not having much time was my comment not a party line, but you are aware that a manifesto is a collective decision and will change from election to election so for internal democracy reasons a snap election is not ideal - Labour though managed to have a document with pretty much universal backing within the party.

which policies in the Labour manifesto do you disapprove of?

 

[callan]

Not my understanding.Why would the EU measure their respective GDP's in a foreign currencyQUOTE]

The dollar is generally used as it is seen as a stable currency preferred across the world...that isn't a dig at the Euro....as you can measure anything in any currency.

 

[Bearded Shrimper]

Sorry, which manifesto costings "were so obviously not true" for you? The commitment to take the railways back in public hands could not possibly have been costed in advance, as it will be done on an ad hoc basis, when existing rail franchises expire.

I think most people would agree to pay more on their income tax to fund the NHS but such "dedicated taxes" are not without risk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothecated_tax

I've even got a Guardian link for you: https://www.theguardian.com/busines...spending-plans-ifs-general-election-manifesto

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Not my understanding.Why would the EU measure their respective GDP's in a foreign currency?

Because this isn't an EU thing, it's a worldwide thing.

.

[QUOTE

The dollar is generally used as it is seen as a stable currency preferred across the world...that isn't a dig at the Euro....as you can measure anything in any currency.

"GDP is measured in the currency of the country in question. That requires adjustment when trying to compare the value of output in two countries using different currencies. The usual method is to convert the value of GDP of each country into U.S. dollars and then compare them."


http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/basics/gdp.htm

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I've even got a Guardian link for you: https://www.theguardian.com/busines...spending-plans-ifs-general-election-manifesto

Quite frankly I'm amazed that a Labour party member is digging up dirt against his own party.

Thought that's what Tories were supposed to do? :winking:

 

[londonblue]

Quite frankly I'm amazed that a Labour party member is digging up dirt against his own party.

Thought that's what Tories were supposed to do? :winking:

I guess it's because some people aren't idealogues like yourself.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I guess it's because some people aren't idealogues like yourself.

There's nothing "predefined" about my ideas, thanks.

 

[londonblue]

There's nothing "predefined" about my ideas, thanks.

:hilarious:

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

:hilarious:

That's the thing about right-wingers (like you).They usually prefer ridicule and abuse to argument.I wonder why? :unsure:

 

[callan]

That's the thing about right-wingers (like you).They usually prefer ridicule and abuse to argument.I wonder why? :unsure:

Is it possible in your opinion to be Left wing but not support Corbyn?

The reason I ask is that he did not have a tremendous amount of support from his own MP's last year...are those MP's Tories in disguise?

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Is it possible in your opinion to be Left wing but not support Corbyn?

The reason I ask is that he did not have a tremendous amount of support from his own MP's last year...are those MP's Tories in disguise?

He did say he intended to vote Tory at the last election and I don't think any left winger could vote for what she was offering.

 

[londonblue]

That's the thing about right-wingers (like you).They usually prefer ridicule and abuse to argument.I wonder why? :unsure:

:hilarious:

 

[callan]

He did say he intended to vote Tory at the last election and I don't think any left winger could vote for what she was offering.

Most Tories wouldn't either.