Labour manifesto unveiled

  • Thread starter Thread starter blueinsa
  • Start date Start date
B B

blueinsa

Guest
Watching it now on Sky and i have to say as a lifelong labour voter who felt going into this election I couldn't vote for a party led by Corbyn, he has actually given me food for thought this morning and has handled himself very well.

He isnt the polished performer that has become the modern day politician granted and it certainly isnt about a cult of personality with him but he is the first to admit that.
 
He's preaching to the converted, when he mentioned free tuition fees the place erupted. Now Tim Farron is on burying Corbyn on his stance on Brexit. Farron wants to stay in the EU and Corbyn doesn't know what he really wants to do. BTW I would vote for Labour if they were a nailed on for leaving the EU without bowing to them, and they got rid of Abbott she can't be a serious politician can she?
 
vonkeynotvenky said:
BTW I would vote for Labour if they were a nailed on for leaving the EU without bowing to them, and they got rid of Abbott she can't be a serious politician can she?
Click to expand...

A position i'm very sympathetic to mate.

Its all moot because he wont take labour to victory but he was impressive this morning and for that he deserves some credit because we are all quick enough to slaughter him when he isnt.
 
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.
 
blueinsa said:
A position i'm very sympathetic to mate.

Its all moot because he wont take labour to victory but he was impressive this morning and for that he deserves some credit because we are all quick enough to slaughter him when he isnt.
Click to expand...

The real puzzler for me is that he's guaranteeing access to the single market yet admits that the free movement of people will have to stop because we are leaving the EU. Access to the single market hinges on the EU giving the UK some leeway surely? he can't guarantee it if the EU demand free movement is part of that deal.
As for his other pledges I can't see anything wrong with them if they are realistically funded.
 
vonkeynotvenky said:
The real puzzler for me is that he's guaranteeing access to the single market yet admits that the free movement of people will have to stop because we are leaving the EU. Access to the single market hinges on the EU giving the UK some leeway surely? he can't guarantee it if the EU demand free movement is part of that deal.
As for his other pledges I can't see anything wrong with them if they are realistically funded.
Click to expand...

His stance on the EU is undeliverable its that simple and for me, labour would renege on what the majority of the population voted for and cant be trusted to deliver brexit.
 
They kept banging on about a fully costed manifesto, and guess what, it's not fully costed. Already had a shadow cabinet member on The Daily Politics bumbling on and failing to answer the question. The economy is one big thing that people don't trust Labour with yet they continually remind people why they can't be trusted.
 
Claytop said:
They kept banging on about a fully costed manifesto, and guess what, it's not fully costed. Already had a shadow cabinet member on The Daily Politics bumbling on and failing to answer the question. The economy is one big thing that people don't trust Labour with yet they continually remind people why they can't be trusted.
Click to expand...

He fell down specifically on the question of how they would fund the re-nationalisation of the water utilities. He tried initially to suggest it would be funded by the corporation tax increases, then claimed that it wasnt his territory and that McDonnell will provide the answer. But he did say that he attended the "Clause 5" meeting which signed off the manifesto. Doesn't that mean that the Clause 5 meeting signed off the commitment to re-nationalise the water utilities without discussing how it would be funded?
 
Tax more, & borrow more.

Then spend more.

Although the extra tax & borrowing still wouldn't raise enough revenue to pay for everything promised.

No mention at all of how much re-nationalising the rail industry, water supply and Royal Mail would cost.
 
cibaman said:
He fell down specifically on the question of how they would fund the re-nationalisation of the water utilities. He tried initially to suggest it would be funded by the corporation tax increases, then claimed that it wasnt his territory and that McDonnell will provide the answer. But he did say that he attended the "Clause 5" meeting which signed off the manifesto. Doesn't that mean that the Clause 5 meeting signed off the commitment to re-nationalise the water utilities without discussing how it would be funded?
Click to expand...

That's probably exactly what happened, but hey free bank holidays for everyone!
 
cibaman said:
He fell down specifically on the question of how they would fund the re-nationalisation of the water utilities. He tried initially to suggest it would be funded by the corporation tax increases, then claimed that it wasnt his territory and that McDonnell will provide the answer. But he did say that he attended the "Clause 5" meeting which signed off the manifesto. Doesn't that mean that the Clause 5 meeting signed off the commitment to re-nationalise the water utilities without discussing how it would be funded?
Click to expand...

I don't understand how any of it can be costed. The cost would be market value and that changes everyday. As an ongoing cause it would also cost money to run these things, they have said nothing on how they will pay for any of that either. What would the cost be of continually employing thousands of new public sector workers? Can this kind of costing be achieved in a month? They just have absolutely no credibility whatsoever.
 
So do the pension funds that hold shares in water companies and National grid get fuckall back if nationalised ? These are pension funds that most working class people are paying into .
 
inbetween said:
I don't understand how any of it can be costed. The cost would be market value and that changes everyday. As an ongoing cause it would also cost money to run these things, they have said nothing on how they will pay for any of that either. What would the cost be of continually employing thousands of new public sector workers? Can this kind of costing be achieved in a month? They just have absolutely no credibility whatsoever.
Click to expand...
They have no need to cost it. If they are voted in they can just seize any of the assets. Hugo Chavez style.

"parliament can set the price at which any public ownership method like this will be designated"
 
inbetween said:
I don't understand how any of it can be costed. The cost would be market value and that changes everyday. As an ongoing cause it would also cost money to run these things, they have said nothing on how they will pay for any of that either. What would the cost be of continually employing thousands of new public sector workers? Can this kind of costing be achieved in a month? They just have absolutely no credibility whatsoever.
Click to expand...
I think it might have something to do with the profits these industries generate ( which are calculated AFTER the costs you refer to) being used to pay off the interest on the borrowing.
As interest rates are very low at the moment these profits could be used to pay off the debt as well as the interest.
Try and think more boldly and don't believe everything you read in the Tory media.
 
Great manifesto and for once the Labour PR machine got the soundbites right.
"Radical and responsible, fully costed, for the many not the few".
And I like the one about it being a radical vision for a better Britain rather than the continuing "management of economic decline"by the Tories.
It's a pity it's too late and no one's listening.To get these messages across you have to get them into the public consciousness over at least a two year period and you have to present yourself as a credible government in waiting which unfortunately Labour has failed to do.
However the manifesto does form a blueprint for a future center left opposition to pick up on. If not then you can bet your life that many of these policies will be pinched by the Tories at some future date.
 
inbetween said:
I don't understand how any of it can be costed. The cost would be market value and that changes everyday. As an ongoing cause it would also cost money to run these things, they have said nothing on how they will pay for any of that either. What would the cost be of continually employing thousands of new public sector workers? Can this kind of costing be achieved in a month? They just have absolutely no credibility whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Get McDonnell to rouse his Marxist hordes, they can just take control on behalf of the 'People.'
That'll stop any more embarrassing funding questions.
 
inbetween said:
I don't understand how any of it can be costed. The cost would be market value and that changes everyday. As an ongoing cause it would also cost money to run these things, they have said nothing on how they will pay for any of that either. What would the cost be of continually employing thousands of new public sector workers? Can this kind of costing be achieved in a month? They just have absolutely no credibility whatsoever.
Click to expand...

I think the point is that these companies make money too, capital cost can be paid back via what is currently private profit.
 
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