Labour manifesto unveiled

[Indaparkside]

When one tree dies it leaves room for a younger healthier one to take its place.

So true Mr friend we shall find out on 8th June , off to the game now come on city

 

[vonkeynotvenky]

So true Mr friend we shall find out on 8th June , off to the game now come on city

4-0 is my prediction. That's US not the Tories ;0

 

[BlueHammer85]

I know people keep repeating that Labour need a leader to bring them more to left of centre - but looking at that Manifesto and Corbyn himself they are not Far left. I really don't see it. He's just more outspoken against the rich, the unfair equality in pay and corporations tax avoidance schemes than most - and that's not a bad thing, getting in a 'Cooper, Miliband' type of leader depresses me as they will just tow the line.

 

[crazyg]

When one tree dies it leaves room for a younger healthier one to take its place.

Thank you, little grasshopper!
;-)

 

[hilts]

I know people keep repeating that Labour need a leader to bring them more to left of centre - but looking at that Manifesto and Corbyn himself they are not Far left. I really don't see it. He's just more outspoken against the rich, the unfair equality in pay and corporations tax avoidance schemes than most - and that's not a bad thing, getting in a 'Cooper, Miliband' type of leader depresses me as they will just tow the line.

You needn't look at the manifesto in those terms, if labour won you need to look at the leader and a shadow cabinet that would be in place. Over a parliament a lot of decisions will need to be made and a JC dream manifesto would be pretty far to the left. It's a lot more about his true inclinations. It really does come down to a bigger state, more welfare and more spending. If someone wants this and believes the economy can still grow under it then the choice is there for you.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Corbyn is doing very good as the opposistion, especially as the media is trying there best to sway people off him. He speaks for the working class more than the Tories will ever do.

 

[bluethrunthru]

I quite like Corbyn, he gives me the impression that he genuinely wants the best for the people.

Not as polished as people would like but i have more faith in him than May.

It is for once a different offering for the electorate - not two or even three parties trying to "out Tory" each other.

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

I don't want to cause dissolution to voters but if a manifesto was both attainable and popular then don't people realise that these measures would have already been taken? I think that few people would have agreed with the privatization of State owned industry, me included, but it happened (tell Sid) and to take it all back would be costly and might just spoil Corbyn's figures. Another thing is that politicians fear unpopularity at least once every five years and if the buyback of sold off industry is to work then it has to work impeccably. If energy or water is both profitable and works well for the consumer, the responsible politicians will be popular at least in the short term. But if a re-nationalised industry performs poorly, it will be politicians who get the flak rather than nameless company executives. An example to think about is the shambles known as the NHS in which the Health Secretary is a sitting duck, and as the man in charge is both unpopular and responsible, he could soon be out of his job. The same fate awaits the Transport Secretary once the railways become re-nationalised, and the old political trick of blaming someone else for industrial mismanagement for it's ills just won't wash with the public. There is no popularity to be gained with those for whom the buck stops.

 

[cibaman]

Corbyn is strong when he gets the chance to talk about policy which is where his passion lies. He's a great activist politician, just not a great leading one. I've always liked the man and many of his policies, I just think they won't chime with the electorate or are a good idea but not thought through with care. And the Labour Party is in such disunity at the moment that I wouldn't trust them to renationalise the Parliament cleaners, let alone the £66bn water industry. Although if Corbyn did turn it round and win then it would be a seismic shift that nobody could fail to back - it could change British political landscape for generations. I'm just not confident that he can do that without appealing to the aspirational middle classes, and I don't see many aspirational middle class policies there.

There's a problem with his election strategy also. He seems to be visiting mostly echo chambers - Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool; they already are going to vote Labour. What he isn't doing is attacking marginals which can win him seats, which you'd imagine he'd want to be doing. There's a rumour in the Party that he's trying to up his popular vote numbers in order to show that his policies are popular which will give us either a post election Corbyn (doubtful) or a Corbyn ally (possible) as next leader. Energising current Labour voters to turnout at the polls rather than winning Labour any new voters.

Apparently his target is to exceed the 30.4% of the vote achieved by Milliband in 2015. Which would then be argued to be progress, regardless of the number of seats lost (which would be blamed on ex Ukippers voting Tory)

 

[Damocles]

Excuse the wording of this, as am not fully clear on it myself. I agree with you on the choice of the word radical in this context. Though, strangely, one definition of radical is "of or going to the root or origin*" - which might imply truly essential/grounded in that which brings balance. But then again if a state of imbalance (instability) is seen as 'normal,' then that which brings balance (stability) may well be seen as abnormal and/or the 'radical' that is associated with "favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms*" Is there a case for the idea that Labour's desire for a more balanced society may be laudable but that they are going about it in a way (perhaps too fast, too soon, that unbalances the mind of the electorate?) that makes the party effectively unelectable?

Essentially yes.

Blair had his strategy right - the way to move the country to the left is to give people centre left versions of their current policies. Majority of people won't jump a mile from their already held positions, they will only edge bit by bit. And look what he achieved - the national minimum wage, LGBT rights enshrined, peace in Northern Ireland, massive investment in A&E departments and the NHS in general, lowered child poverty, etc. His way works and Labour should be trying to replicate it whenever possible.

Example: people on the left look at immigration and say it's because everybody is a xenophobic racist but that's bollocks. However when people argue for less immigration, it's fair to say that most people are actually asking for less of the perceived effects of immigration. If you can sort out jobs for the working class, if you can sort out waiting times in the public services and you can sort out low cost housing and the ghettoisation of some areas then a lot of the immigration worriers aren't quite as worried about it any more. Just like the NHS - people aren't worried about the funding of the NHS, they're worried about the lack of nurses/Doctors, the lack of pay in that sector and the service inefficiencies. Those sound like the same thing but they're not the same thing.

Corbyn's policies aren't addressing people's direct needs, they're addressing some people's direct philosophies which is why he's failing. Let's take for example the renationalisation of water; stealing from a Nils Prately article today, the Government can currently borrow on public markets at 1.5%. The Severn Trent company has a dividend yielding 3.4% and the Government could refinance its debt at a lower rate than the company has it at which could push that up to potentially 4%. So borrowing at 1.5% to make 4% is a somewhat sensible deal on the face of things. But here's the problem - they're renationalising in order to drop water bills which means that profits will drop so the figures won't add up any more in the same way. Will that 3.4% stay above 1.5%? I dunno. But neither do they currently.

So they can't really substantially drop water bills which would have an effect on people's lives. And if they're not renationalising to directly affect a need, what is this policy for? Because many of left Labour movement feel that nationalisation is a good thing so will make any excuse to happen. This is perfectly fine for the record, I don't have a problem per se with ideological driven Government but that ideology has to be driven by the ideology of the electorate which it isn't.

If he's really bothered about water then he should be pushing for greater powers for Ofwat, to reign in companies owned by Cayman Island offshores which end up down a hole of shell companies and we don't know who owns the water in our pipes. That's a pretty sensible and agreeable option and he can say that the Government will work with the franchises in a PPP in order to update the piping networks or super sewers in an investment scheme where the Government injects capital and gets shares in return. Everybody wins - we got a dividend into the public purse, water bills ultimately come down, it keeps private competition and the markets healthy and we actually invest rather than spend money. This addresses a need to businesses, to consumers and to philosophy all in one policy and it could actually be passed in Parliament. Corbyn's writing Bills that he cannot pass even if he wins the election due to opposition within his own party and the public aren't buying it because again, it addresses their philosophy rather than their needs.

The Labour Party manifesto is something written by a Politics class in a University. It's all ideology rather than directly targeting voters in things that they will vote for.

 

[cibaman]

Essentially yes.

Blair had his strategy right - the way to move the country to the left is to give people centre left versions of their current policies. Majority of people won't jump a mile from their already held positions, they will only edge bit by bit. And look what he achieved - the national minimum wage, LGBT rights enshrined, peace in Northern Ireland, massive investment in A&E departments and the NHS in general, lowered child poverty, etc. His way works and Labour should be trying to replicate it whenever possible.

Example: people on the left look at immigration and say it's because everybody is a xenophobic racist but that's bollocks. However when people argue for less immigration, it's fair to say that most people are actually asking for less of the perceived effects of immigration. If you can sort out jobs for the working class, if you can sort out waiting times in the public services and you can sort out low cost housing and the ghettoisation of some areas then a lot of the immigration worriers aren't quite as worried about it any more. Just like the NHS - people aren't worried about the funding of the NHS, they're worried about the lack of nurses/Doctors, the lack of pay in that sector and the service inefficiencies. Those sound like the same thing but they're not the same thing.

Corbyn's policies aren't addressing people's direct needs, they're addressing some people's direct philosophies which is why he's failing. Let's take for example the renationalisation of water; stealing from a Nils Prately article today, the Government can currently borrow on public markets at 1.5%. The Severn Trent company has a dividend yielding 3.4% and the Government could refinance its debt at a lower rate than the company has it at which could push that up to potentially 4%. So borrowing at 1.5% to make 4% is a somewhat sensible deal on the face of things. But here's the problem - they're renationalising in order to drop water bills which means that profits will drop so the figures won't add up any more in the same way. Will that 3.4% stay above 1.5%? I dunno. But neither do they currently.

So they can't really substantially drop water bills which would have an effect on people's lives. And if they're not renationalising to directly affect a need, what is this policy for? Because many of left Labour movement feel that nationalisation is a good thing so will make any excuse to happen. This is perfectly fine for the record, I don't have a problem per se with ideological driven Government but that ideology has to be driven by the ideology of the electorate which it isn't.

If he's really bothered about water then he should be pushing for greater powers for Ofwat, to reign in companies owned by Cayman Island offshores which end up down a hole of shell companies and we don't know who owns the water in our pipes. That's a pretty sensible and agreeable option and he can say that the Government will work with the franchises in a PPP in order to update the piping networks or super sewers in an investment scheme where the Government injects capital and gets shares in return. Everybody wins - we got a dividend into the public purse, water bills ultimately come down, it keeps private competition and the markets healthy and we actually invest rather than spend money. This addresses a need to businesses, to consumers and to philosophy all in one policy and it could actually be passed in Parliament. Corbyn's writing Bills that he cannot pass even if he wins the election due to opposition within his own party and the public aren't buying it because again, it addresses their philosophy rather than their needs.

The Labour Party manifesto is something written by a Politics class in a University. It's all ideology rather than directly targeting voters in things that they will vote for.

The other issue with the re-nationalisation of the water companies is that, when combined with Labour's industrial relations policies, it would inevitably lead to higher wage settlements in the industry. Some might consider that a good thing, nevertheless it would reduce the return on investment.

 

[CitizenTID]

Maybe they're trying to make up for Scotland having free higher education but I don't agree with scrapping tuition fees completely. The old £3000 a year fees were sensible. 2 reasons:

1 - You'll have people changing their mind on their degree on a whim and wasting the country's money since it's free to do so for them. Or they'll do a second degree.
2 - The country becomes "too" educated, in that there will be a shortfall of UK citizens willing to do the non-degree educated jobs - meaning (in a basic way of looking at it) we'd need constant unskilled immigration which there are obviously a number of issues with already.

Perhaps they'd promote apprenticeships as strongly alongside uni though.

 

[vonkeynotvenky]

 

[Xiphos]

Hahahaha
Liebour

 

[arfurclue]

Essentially yes.

Blair had his strategy right - the way to move the country to the left is to give people centre left versions of their current policies. Majority of people won't jump a mile from their already held positions, they will only edge bit by bit. And look what he achieved - the national minimum wage, LGBT rights enshrined, peace in Northern Ireland, massive investment in A&E departments and the NHS in general, lowered child poverty, etc. His way works and Labour should be trying to replicate it whenever possible.

Example: people on the left look at immigration and say it's because everybody is a xenophobic racist but that's bollocks. However when people argue for less immigration, it's fair to say that most people are actually asking for less of the perceived effects of immigration. If you can sort out jobs for the working class, if you can sort out waiting times in the public services and you can sort out low cost housing and the ghettoisation of some areas then a lot of the immigration worriers aren't quite as worried about it any more. Just like the NHS - people aren't worried about the funding of the NHS, they're worried about the lack of nurses/Doctors, the lack of pay in that sector and the service inefficiencies. Those sound like the same thing but they're not the same thing.

Corbyn's policies aren't addressing people's direct needs, they're addressing some people's direct philosophies which is why he's failing. Let's take for example the renationalisation of water; stealing from a Nils Prately article today, the Government can currently borrow on public markets at 1.5%. The Severn Trent company has a dividend yielding 3.4% and the Government could refinance its debt at a lower rate than the company has it at which could push that up to potentially 4%. So borrowing at 1.5% to make 4% is a somewhat sensible deal on the face of things. But here's the problem - they're renationalising in order to drop water bills which means that profits will drop so the figures won't add up any more in the same way. Will that 3.4% stay above 1.5%? I dunno. But neither do they currently.

So they can't really substantially drop water bills which would have an effect on people's lives. And if they're not renationalising to directly affect a need, what is this policy for? Because many of left Labour movement feel that nationalisation is a good thing so will make any excuse to happen. This is perfectly fine for the record, I don't have a problem per se with ideological driven Government but that ideology has to be driven by the ideology of the electorate which it isn't.

If he's really bothered about water then he should be pushing for greater powers for Ofwat, to reign in companies owned by Cayman Island offshores which end up down a hole of shell companies and we don't know who owns the water in our pipes. That's a pretty sensible and agreeable option and he can say that the Government will work with the franchises in a PPP in order to update the piping networks or super sewers in an investment scheme where the Government injects capital and gets shares in return. Everybody wins - we got a dividend into the public purse, water bills ultimately come down, it keeps private competition and the markets healthy and we actually invest rather than spend money. This addresses a need to businesses, to consumers and to philosophy all in one policy and it could actually be passed in Parliament. Corbyn's writing Bills that he cannot pass even if he wins the election due to opposition within his own party and the public aren't buying it because again, it addresses their philosophy rather than their needs.

The Labour Party manifesto is something written by a Politics class in a University. It's all ideology rather than directly targeting voters in things that they will vote for.

Beautiful piece of writing. Thanks. Made a lot of sense. Feels like you are also speaking of a shift from a rigid adherence to dogmatic theory to a joining of the theoretical and practical, in a way that creates a state of 'flow' (of resources etc). That, in my eyes, would be wonderful.

 

[Hamann Pineapple]

Essentially yes.

Blair had his strategy right - the way to move the country to the left is to give people centre left versions of their current policies. Majority of people won't jump a mile from their already held positions, they will only edge bit by bit. And look what he achieved - the national minimum wage, LGBT rights enshrined, peace in Northern Ireland, massive investment in A&E departments and the NHS in general, lowered child poverty, etc. His way works and Labour should be trying to replicate it whenever possible.

Example: people on the left look at immigration and say it's because everybody is a xenophobic racist but that's bollocks. However when people argue for less immigration, it's fair to say that most people are actually asking for less of the perceived effects of immigration. If you can sort out jobs for the working class, if you can sort out waiting times in the public services and you can sort out low cost housing and the ghettoisation of some areas then a lot of the immigration worriers aren't quite as worried about it any more. Just like the NHS - people aren't worried about the funding of the NHS, they're worried about the lack of nurses/Doctors, the lack of pay in that sector and the service inefficiencies. Those sound like the same thing but they're not the same thing.

Corbyn's policies aren't addressing people's direct needs, they're addressing some people's direct philosophies which is why he's failing. Let's take for example the renationalisation of water; stealing from a Nils Prately article today, the Government can currently borrow on public markets at 1.5%. The Severn Trent company has a dividend yielding 3.4% and the Government could refinance its debt at a lower rate than the company has it at which could push that up to potentially 4%. So borrowing at 1.5% to make 4% is a somewhat sensible deal on the face of things. But here's the problem - they're renationalising in order to drop water bills which means that profits will drop so the figures won't add up any more in the same way. Will that 3.4% stay above 1.5%? I dunno. But neither do they currently.

So they can't really substantially drop water bills which would have an effect on people's lives. And if they're not renationalising to directly affect a need, what is this policy for? Because many of left Labour movement feel that nationalisation is a good thing so will make any excuse to happen. This is perfectly fine for the record, I don't have a problem per se with ideological driven Government but that ideology has to be driven by the ideology of the electorate which it isn't.

If he's really bothered about water then he should be pushing for greater powers for Ofwat, to reign in companies owned by Cayman Island offshores which end up down a hole of shell companies and we don't know who owns the water in our pipes. That's a pretty sensible and agreeable option and he can say that the Government will work with the franchises in a PPP in order to update the piping networks or super sewers in an investment scheme where the Government injects capital and gets shares in return. Everybody wins - we got a dividend into the public purse, water bills ultimately come down, it keeps private competition and the markets healthy and we actually invest rather than spend money. This addresses a need to businesses, to consumers and to philosophy all in one policy and it could actually be passed in Parliament. Corbyn's writing Bills that he cannot pass even if he wins the election due to opposition within his own party and the public aren't buying it because again, it addresses their philosophy rather than their needs.

The Labour Party manifesto is something written by a Politics class in a University. It's all ideology rather than directly targeting voters in things that they will vote for.

Will that not be offset somewhat by not having to pay dividends to shareholders ?