The Labour Party

blueinsa said:
You dont mind?

Cheers.

Blueinsa and password is Adolf H1tler ;-)
Click to expand...

9fcbdafcf80328b5c6f81f0e65bc3d5c.jpeg
 
Rascal said:
Nice to see you little cheer leaders are following this closely. Hello cheerleaders.

And I would argue it is not relevant, because the provision exists, it is a matter of not taking up the provision. At 5 the provision has to exist because the child exists, if the parent decide to pay for schooling elsewhere that provision is not lost it is still there. The fixed costs remain the same, the marginal costs of one less pupil per classroom is negligible and the variable costs are unaffected unless you feel the output of one less pupil will significantly increase the output/results of the other 29, based on a 30 kid classroom.

So I refute your argument that it reduces the burden on the state, because the obligation stands. If a child's parents suddenly go bankrupt, the child would not go uneducated because the provision for a state education exists for that child.
Click to expand...
It’s a bit like airlines, they overbook because they account for no shows. The Education budget is not based on every single child taking their place, they know 600k per year will be in private school and fund the budget based on probable numbers. Of course you are correct there would be a place for every child if necessary but overcrowding would be commonplace and the system wouldn’t cope, the budget would have to be increased to manage the extra demand. Your argument is based purely on theory and not the reality of the situation.
 
Rascal said:
Some tax rises, some borrowing certainly.

Borrowing has been turned into a dirty word by the Tories, but if you want to build you have to borrow. If you buy a house you get a mortgage after all.

From what he has talked about, the investment is well targeted which will mean it will get a return through the multiplier effect. It is sensible and realistic.

No doubt, the usual suspects will be along shortly with their Marxist comments.
Click to expand...

Some of it is investment and will yield increases to the treasury but I'm not sure it will cover anywhere near the amount he plans to spend across so many departments. The last, supposedly 'costed' manifesto was taken apart by the IFS and given that this seems to be be even less affordable (although with some decent policies), it seems unfair on future generations who'd be carrying the responsibility to pay back the debt.
 
Gaudion M said:
It's nice to see people owning there shit.

I'm part of the -70% disapproval rating and one of Labours lost remainer voters. My MP defected from Labour because of the views of people like me.

I own it.
Click to expand...
Was watching the match last night with three blue mates, age range 55-70, all four of us are lost Labour voters, we had a small chat and the one common subject was the lack of trust in Corbyn and his Shadow Cabinet. Labour will probably only win when they get rid of Jezzer and co, they are almost unelectable but by promising a lot (like University fees being scrapped) to the young and impressionable they may get very close. It’s years of heartache, JC is the firewall the Conservatives need to keep them in Office.
 
hammocity said:
Was watching the match last night with three blue mates, age range 55-70, all four of us are lost Labour voters, we had a small chat and the one common subject was the lack of trust in Corbyn and his Shadow Cabinet. Labour will probably only win when they get rid of Jezzer and co, they are almost unelectable but by promising a lot (like University fees being scrapped) to the young and impressionable they may get very close. It’s years of heartache, JC is the firewall the Conservatives need to keep them in Office.
Click to expand...

If the tories could dream up the perfect Labour scenario it would be JC as leader followed by Dianne Abbott. What a mess.
 
Gaudion M said:
If the tories could dream up the perfect Labour scenario it would be JC as leader followed by Dianne Abbott. What a mess.
Click to expand...

They rolled Dianne out for the camera again this morning.

Disaster waiting to happen every time and why they do it to her i have no idea as she suffers and so to does her party.
 
blueinsa said:
They rolled Dianne out for the camera again this morning.

Disaster waiting to happen every time and why they do it to her i have no idea as she suffers and so to does her party.
Click to expand...

Stamer is pretty good on Camera as is Watson, McDonnel & Thornberry are ok. JC is terrible, Gardner is terrible, Rebecca LB terrible, Abbott is dreadful.
 
Just seen that Labour have passed a motion to give migrants full access to the welfare system including full use of the NHS, full voting rights, and have pretty much adopted an open doors immigration policy. I'm sure there's no possibility for any of that to be abused or for people to take out of the system without putting in but either way, it's a definite vote loser after coming up with some decent albeit no doubt uncosted policies yesterday.

It's worrying to think we've had almost 10 years of the Tories and no matter how many lies or laws Johnson tells or breaks, we're almost certain to be having at least another 10.
 
Gaudion M said:
Stamer is pretty good on Camera as is Watson, McDonnel & Thornberry are ok. JC is terrible, Gardner is terrible, Rebecca LB terrible, Abbott is dreadful.
Click to expand...

Just reading that, and I don't mean to make a party political point, but can you remember a time when the front benches of both main parties were populated by such utter dross?

With few exceptions they are either obnoxious, uncharismatic or useless. And very often all three.

Politics in this country has not been at such a low ebb in my living memory.
 
Gaudion M said:
How can that possibly be true. Many MPs have left the two main parties due to the state of their leaders. In all instances they have significantly dented there chance of being re-elected. How can that be in there self interest?

I don't agree that any MP is stealing their living of any party, firstly because the parties dont pay them and secondly, even the worst of the worst, the likes of Kate Howy or Christopher Chope (Rank Awful MPs) are there because parties put them forward and people elected them. Once those things happen they are there for the duration and you have to accept it.
Click to expand...

I was usuing stealing a living in a more general terminology sense, however

Joan Ryan,
Anne Coffey,
Angela Smith,
Chris Leslie,
Mike Gapes,
Ian Austin,
Jihn Woodcock
Gavin Shuker
and Chuka Umunna

None of these have Labour values and all are well rid of.

I reserve special dislike for Chukka, Coffey, Gapes and in particular that sex pest Woodcock, all gobshites that I don't miss.
 
blueinsa said:
Dont forget the envy fumble.

Still the Labour front bench have all benefited now so safe to take it away from others.
Click to expand...

See as a proponent of the ideas of Pyotr Alexeyevich Kropotkin, I don't envy wealth or money or property, and have no desire to acumulate more than is necessary to live.

Any extra I have can be equally distributed for the good of family, friends and thos eless fortunate.
 
Fame Monster said:
Just seen that Labour have passed a motion to give migrants full access to the welfare system including full use of the NHS, full voting rights, and have pretty much adopted an open doors immigration policy. I'm sure there's no possibility for any of that to be abused or for people to take out of the system without putting in but either way, it's a definite vote loser after coming up with some decent albeit no doubt uncosted policies yesterday.

It's worrying to think we've had almost 10 years of the Tories and no matter how many lies or laws Johnson tells or breaks, we're almost certain to be having at least another 10.
Click to expand...


Do you have a link? I have bben keeping up with the conference and any new motions passed and must have missed that one.
 
Fame Monster said:
https://labourlist.org/2019/09/labour-conference-approves-motion-to-extend-free-movement/
Click to expand...


Cheers, been busy so not caught up with all of the end of conference motions.


I take it your on about the ending of no recourse to public funds rules now part?

Only as I understand it that only applies to inwork benefits and those for eligable personwho have paid tax.

So no other wellfare options are being offered to migrants, only those they can earn rather than full access, if what labour list have stated is correct.
 
Fame Monster said:
Just seen that Labour have passed a motion to give migrants full access to the welfare system including full use of the NHS, full voting rights, and have pretty much adopted an open doors immigration policy. I'm sure there's no possibility for any of that to be abused or for people to take out of the system without putting in but either way, it's a definite vote loser after coming up with some decent albeit no doubt uncosted policies yesterday.

It's worrying to think we've had almost 10 years of the Tories and no matter how many lies or laws Johnson tells or breaks, we're almost certain to be having at least another 10.
Click to expand...
Based on that i think Boris can start looking how he wants no. 10 redecorating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top