Current Affairs The Labour Party

[tsubaki]

I find it extremely weird that members of a party would actively seeking to help one of their incumbent MPs lose. That to me is symptomatic of the narrow mindedness of elements of the party. Labour used to be more open to different view points. At least that's how it seemed to me.

I agree - but for the life of me I can't see why the likes of you only ever seem to attack the side that isn't doing that.

 

[orly]

I agree - but for the life of me I can't see why the likes of you only ever seem to attack the side that isn't doing that.

"The likes of you". Pathetic.

 

[tsubaki]

Its utopia that leaked draft memo - nothing in it I do not like ..... but raising corporation tax by one third would see an exodus of companies leaving the UK - USA willing to drop the corporation tax to 15% the new French prime minister taking in reducing business tax in France -
its pie in the sky going after tax avoidance would have been a better way to pay for some of these things - chasing companies away of our shores is a certainty!
1970 politics by a 1970;s leader in Corbyn - no centre ground just hard left policies - somethin in Europe that is unelectable never mind in the UK!

The biggest mistake in it is an apparent failure to tackle waste, which is after all the achilles heel of this Government.

McDonnell should have said that no taxes will be put up until the government stops paying £200 for a bulb, £1000 for a laptop, £380,000 a year for a primary head teacher etc etc

 

[tsubaki]

"The likes of you". Pathetic.

Perhaps I should have said "you and your ilk". I note without any surprise that there's not been a peep out of you to condemn these attempts to get rid of Hoey, now that its obvious its the right wing that are doing it.

 

[The binman chronicles]

So are you saying all those things shouldn't be done for the good of society? Not if they can be done.

I think most people would like to see it all happen, but the fact is he has added so much that the costs mean it would be undeliverable and therefore it is a joke manifesto.

 

[ashwuk76]

I think most people would like to see it all happen, but the fact is he has added so much that the costs mean it would be undeliverable and therefore it is a joke manifesto.

Haven't totally disgusted the costs bit to see how workable it is. However, I have previously said they should go after tax avoiders as a priority.
Not so sure that most people think they should be done.

 

[tsubaki]

I think most people would like to see it all happen, but the fact is he has added so much that the costs mean it would be undeliverable and therefore it is a joke manifesto.

Some of the items perhaps, but others would almost certainly save money. For example, renationalizing the railway in the way they plan to do it wouldn't cost anything up-front and would probably (assuming that the system was reintegrated back together) cost quite a bit less than it does now.

 

[orly]

Definitely Tom Watson or Peter Mandelson who leaked this.

Oh wait it's got a positive press, I think it was probably Dianne Abbott, very shrewd

 

[peteblue]

Some of the items perhaps, but others would almost certainly save money. For example, renationalizing the railway in the way they plan to do it wouldn't cost anything up-front and would probably (assuming that the system was reintegrated back together) cost quite a bit less than it does now.

What does renationalising the railway do, is it to reduce prices, increase quality of service, provide new routes, increase infrastructure. Does it include track and signalling, stations and car parks, rolling stock and maintenance, upgrade of trains etc. Does anyone have a clue what that would cost, both in terms of capital expenditure and ongoing revenue, or do we just go with Abbot mathematics and make some numbers up......

 

[Bruce Wayne]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/draft_manifesto_110517.pdf is the link to the full manifesto btw, so hopefully people will read it rather than rely on the press to translate it.

 

[The binman chronicles]

Some of the items perhaps, but others would almost certainly save money. For example, renationalizing the railway in the way they plan to do it wouldn't cost anything up-front and would probably (assuming that the system was reintegrated back together) cost quite a bit less than it does now.

You've already seen though he is already banging on about increasing wages and giving unions more power, as well as investing to improve the service. It is something that a lot of us would like to see (nationalising that and utilities) but in the end the cost would be huge and the service provided would probably be worse due to everyone being on strike all the time! Well if the top man says it's ok...

 

[The binman chronicles]

Haven't totally disgusted the costs bit to see how workable it is. However, I have previously said they should go after tax avoiders as a priority.
Not so sure that most people think they should be done.

You raise the level of tax to the top earners/corporations then they will leave this country to find a new home, they are wealthy and can make that choice. Meanwhile once they have all gone less money actually comes back into the government coffers that will then causes more issues for the people who can't just up and leave.

 

[ToffeeTim]

That manifesto is undeliverable. The only way you pump a trillion pounds of fake money into the economy is by QE. Which Brown did in 09 and near bankrupt the country.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

With regards to the railways, has there been any [impartial] analysis of the railways now and under British Rail in terms of the number of train services and their punctuality, price of tickets, number of passengers and so on?

 

[tsubaki]

What does renationalising the railway do, is it to reduce prices, increase quality of service, provide new routes, increase infrastructure. Does it include track and signalling, stations and car parks, rolling stock and maintenance, upgrade of trains etc. Does anyone have a clue what that would cost, both in terms of capital expenditure and ongoing revenue, or do we just go with Abbot mathematics and make some numbers up......

We already in effect own the network, stations and car parks (and have done since Railtrack was wound up), and what they are proposing is taking back franchises as they expire, which costs nothing up front but which would involve the usual staff costs once they were taken over. In the one main case that happened so far (on the admittedly atypical East Coast mainline), it generated a billion pounds in payments to the Government over the space of five and a bit years.

All that would be left is the trains themselves, almost all of which are leased to the train companies by holding firms - these could either continue to be leased until they are life expired (which would probably reduce the cost, given that the firms have no-one else to lease them to) or just bought outright. Maintenance is currently divided between the owner (heavy maintenance) and the lessee (normal maintenance) at present.