Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
General Election 2017: Labour Manifesto Draft Leaked
Answers
I will say I don't think it's entirely Corbyn's faction that has destroyed the Labour party. I think the situation is actually much worse than that. If it was just a coup by insurgent radicals (as is often represented)
10:09 Thu 11th May 2017
Corbyn's strategy is for the long term, he knows he has no hope this election or the one after that!
As said it is about resetting the goals, Blairite 'New Labour' was just an imitation of the Tory party , (Thatcher was his role model and inspiration) . Corbyn has started to take it back to it's 'roots'. It will take many years.
But at last there is a choice. If you don't like don't vote Labour!
It will not be popular with AB members as I well know, but there is now an alternative.
As said it is about resetting the goals, Blairite 'New Labour' was just an imitation of the Tory party , (Thatcher was his role model and inspiration) . Corbyn has started to take it back to it's 'roots'. It will take many years.
But at last there is a choice. If you don't like don't vote Labour!
It will not be popular with AB members as I well know, but there is now an alternative.
It depends on what matters to you I suppose... both parties have essentially the same policy on Brexit (there may be slight differences here - we'll need to see the Tory manifesto to be sure). But they're both committed to doing it, and both say they want access to the single market. The only major difference is that the Conservatives seem to be willing to walk away without a deal, though they have been playing that down a lot more lately. Make of that what you will, but it's still only a few shades of difference on the biggest issue in Britain today.
I’m bemused by this phrase “we must have access to the single market”.
Every country on Earth has access to the single market. They can trade with its members. The USA has no trade agreement with the EU (and hence none with the UK). Yet the UK is the USA’s biggest market in Europe. It has access to the single market in the same way as every other non-EU nation has. The UK will benefit from the same access when it leaves the EU.
The “immediate £1,000 energy price cap” has also been well thought out. I have a medium sized home and I don’t skimp on energy. My bill is approaching £900 (due to frequent “switching” I get the best deal I can). So Mr Corbyn is proposing a £1,000 cap on all homes? So utility companies are to be expected to provide energy to, say, a six bedroom home with a sauna and a swimming pool for the same £1,000? Or are the homes of the “rich” to be exempt from the cap? More information required beneath the hype, I think.
Every country on Earth has access to the single market. They can trade with its members. The USA has no trade agreement with the EU (and hence none with the UK). Yet the UK is the USA’s biggest market in Europe. It has access to the single market in the same way as every other non-EU nation has. The UK will benefit from the same access when it leaves the EU.
The “immediate £1,000 energy price cap” has also been well thought out. I have a medium sized home and I don’t skimp on energy. My bill is approaching £900 (due to frequent “switching” I get the best deal I can). So Mr Corbyn is proposing a £1,000 cap on all homes? So utility companies are to be expected to provide energy to, say, a six bedroom home with a sauna and a swimming pool for the same £1,000? Or are the homes of the “rich” to be exempt from the cap? More information required beneath the hype, I think.
A lot of Corbyns policies are very good and some not. For the long term some of them do seem laudable and worthwhile.
I just don't trust Labour to be able to deliver in any reasonable budget. They spend, spend, spend without real thought to income. Look at Brown selling the countries gold at a knockdown price just to say he had cash to spare.
It keeps happening with Labour. They get in power and virtually bankrupt the country and then expect everyone to foot the bill. Either that or they get kicked out and blame the next government for it and for not being able to put it right quick enough.
So, sorry Labour you are on a looser because you just can't manage the books.
I just don't trust Labour to be able to deliver in any reasonable budget. They spend, spend, spend without real thought to income. Look at Brown selling the countries gold at a knockdown price just to say he had cash to spare.
It keeps happening with Labour. They get in power and virtually bankrupt the country and then expect everyone to foot the bill. Either that or they get kicked out and blame the next government for it and for not being able to put it right quick enough.
So, sorry Labour you are on a looser because you just can't manage the books.
Well, there is nothing unworkable about the first of those, Mikey, though the second might cost a small fortune to complete, and a further cost to run as Government run services don't tend to be run efficiently.
What is unworkable though is the idea that you can just increase taxation on the rich to pay for all this and more.
What is unworkable though is the idea that you can just increase taxation on the rich to pay for all this and more.
Gararam....I repeat.....there is nothing unworkable about bringing our railway system back into public ownership. This have been discussed on other threads.
At the moment, all the huge pubic subsidies that are paid out to the privatised railway companies, goes straight into the pockets of the companies, and their shareholders.
What the Labour are now suggesting, is that as each of these companies' contracts comes up renewal, they are brought back into public ownership. No compensation would be needed, and the subsidy money that is currently wasted, could then be used to run the system.
After all, this is not so unusual is it ? That effectively what was done with Railtrack.
.
At the moment, all the huge pubic subsidies that are paid out to the privatised railway companies, goes straight into the pockets of the companies, and their shareholders.
What the Labour are now suggesting, is that as each of these companies' contracts comes up renewal, they are brought back into public ownership. No compensation would be needed, and the subsidy money that is currently wasted, could then be used to run the system.
After all, this is not so unusual is it ? That effectively what was done with Railtrack.
.
Yes that is exactly what I am saying Mikey. Although I don't understand your comment "Try playing the ball and not the man"
I DO NOT TRUST Labour to be able to organise a pissup in a brewery. Regardless of who is in charge of them.
You can have all the best ideas in the world but if your ability to deliver is in the bin then there is no point.
Having a laudable idea is not the same as having a workable idea.
I DO NOT TRUST Labour to be able to organise a pissup in a brewery. Regardless of who is in charge of them.
You can have all the best ideas in the world but if your ability to deliver is in the bin then there is no point.
Having a laudable idea is not the same as having a workable idea.
Mush...I meant Network Rail, although I am sure you could have worked that out for your self.
There is no reason whatsoever why the same kind of company as Network Rail, couldn't take over the hived-off railways companies.
The reason that it hasn't been done already, is that the Tory Party would have to admit that they got it wrong in the first place.
There is no reason whatsoever why the same kind of company as Network Rail, couldn't take over the hived-off railways companies.
The reason that it hasn't been done already, is that the Tory Party would have to admit that they got it wrong in the first place.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.