Well. I bow to no one in my detestation of Corbyn, but i give him some grudging respect for at least producing a manifesto - and a bloody detailed one at that - which provides a clear alternative to what we have been offered since probably 2001.
I find the reaction of the Tories and the right wing press pretty distasteful. Debate it, sure. Pull it apart, sure. But it goes way beyond that already, perjorative personal attacks which give the impression that even offering so called left wing ideas is almost a treasonable offence in 2017 Britain.
It's worth remembering that both France and the US - the US - had presidential candidates who in many ways offered a manifesto just as left wing as this one. Well I got the impression that while both candidates were attacked by opponents, neither suffered such full frontal personal abuse as the main thrust of the argument against. Maybe I am wrong there, perhaps @SDAddick has a view on how Sanders was treated. Anyway
Should we rationally debate the idea that both corporations and rich individuals should pay more tax to help fund the NHS and social care? Yes, for me.
Should we re-think the uniquely, preposterously high tuition fees of our unis? As someone supporting two kids at uni who are not even my own, yes, from me.
Should we look at whether the privatisation of utilities, especially the railways, has been in the country's best interests? Yes from me, all day long.
Does Corbyn have a point when he says the "war on terror" hasn't worked? Yes, from me.
Actually, unless it's buried there, I regret that Labour has not addressed the Politics of Tax, that is to say, strenghening HMRC and working with other countries to ensure that Google, Facebook et al pay the tax they already should,before we even talk about raising the rates.
I have a feeling that if people ignore Murdoch and Dacre, and debate the issues, we may see the Tory lead narrowing.
There are numerous, well sourced articles around the subject of Labour's economic record. Whether you're Labour, Tory, Lib Dem, Ukip or whatever it's never been easier to compare empirical, economic performance yet this myth promoted by the Tories persists.
The Labours, always, do overspend. It is not a myth. The last lot were lucky enough to have inherited an economy that was entering a very prosperous boom period. If they had been truly prudent, a word famously used by Gordon Brown on many, many occasions, they would have been running very large budget surpluses on account in anticipation of harder times ahead.
But no, their choice instead was to borrow more, spend more and put the future in hock with a variety of PFI schemes. We now owe in excess of £120bn on PFI schemes alone, not to mention the annual (high) interest payments. (Yes, I know they were invented by John Major but the really big PFI spends happened under Brown. Andy Burnham alone signed off on 221 PFI projects. Factor in the additional Govt. tax receipts from Brown's, what was it, a staggering 157 additional stealth taxes and you get the picture.
And, then, who can forget Jim Callaghan's 1976 crisis when the UK actually had to borrow money from the IMF because no one else would lend us any? Or Harold Wilson's comedy and utterly dishonest "The pound in your pocket" quote after the formal sterling devaluation?
So, yes, there are numerous well sourced articles on the Labours' economic record and if you delve in a little you find the true picture and the true costs and the true mess.
I'm not saying the Tories are great either. But you can't honestly believe the Labours were any good, can you? Even they don't think that! With Burnham apologising for the PFIs; Brown flogging off all the gold reserves at the lowest possible price; and then there's the infamous letter from Liam Byrne, Brown's Chief Secretary to the Treasury which spelt out the position succinctly "Dear Chief Secretary, I'm afraid that there is no money. Kind regards and good luck."
Now, let's fast forward. In case you've forgotten in October 2015 the Labours helped pass the Fiscal Charter which requires a Govt. to run a budget surplus from 2019/20. (How's that going I wonder?)
So, having initially fallen into this Tory trap and agreeing to their "fiscal charter" John McDonnell (after a particularly heated exchange with the Labours' paymasters) did a spectacular u-turn on the Fiscal Charter.
having previoulsy said "There is nothing progressive about running up excessive debt." he now says the Labour Manifesto is progressive! How can that be the case? And how good will the Labours' new(ish) Fiscal Credibility Rule turn out to be? It doesn't mind vast borrowing for capital projects for example. PFI revisited maybe or paying excessive interest, who knows?
So, say what you like about the Tories but please don't try to fool us into believing the Labours have a single sensible idea about budgetary prudence. Because that's a laughable suggestion. I wouldn't trust them with a five pence piece.
Labour supporters seem happy that rich(er) people and companies would be getting hit hard as a by-product of all these expensive policies; they are rubbing their hands with glee. But have they really thought about it? Do they know that the growth drivers in this country are small businesses which will also be hit by additional corporation tax not just the nasty big corporations? Do they know that the choice is between companies paying more tax or growing a business and paying and recruiting more staff. Is that a sensible choice? And one that they really want to be taken forward? They think it will not impact them and fortunately it's unlikely because as things stand Corbyn has no chance. But how would they get on if McDonnell got the chance to push out the BoE's inflation target from 2% to 4% while pay rises would be completely off the table because no businesses could afford expansion any more and even if they could, no one would have spare cash to buy their products! And that's before you factor in any unpleasantness as a result of Brexit.
Nothing is a free lunch, no matter how much the Labour dweebs try to pretend otherwise.
Where does anybody say there is a free lunch? I can't think of any political party that doesn't accept things have to be paid for. The political question is surely what things, for how much, paid for by whom?
Yeah but the Labours are hinting - actually scrub that - explicitly claiming that their policies will only impact the rich. So people are considering voting for them on that basis and are probably assuming they won't be caught by additional costs themselves. If they think it won't impact them, they are sadly mistaken.
And the guff above about profit. What does anybody think might go towards paying for additional research, business expansion and hiring more people. One thing's for sure a business that isn't allowed to make money is not going for the expansion option. In any event prospective punters wouldn't have any spare cash as it will all be taxed and they wouldn't be able to afford to buy anything much.
By way of example let's take someone with a salary of £80,000 living in an outer London burb. After income tax and NICs they currently take home £54,176.48. So, pretty much a third of their salary goes to HMRC. We don't know the Labours' actual proposals yet do we? It's supposed to be "just a modest bit more". But let's say it's an extra tax band which might take say £1,000. That's an extra grand they would not be able to spend straight away. Meanwhile 80k man's firm is getting hit with extra tax. They know this but will not want shareholders to suffer dividend cuts. (Otherwise investors would take their investments elsewhere, Europe probably as European companies from a very low base have started to see the merits of progressive dividend yields.) So what gets hit? Well 80k man won't get a pay rise. Meanwhile inflation has nudged up to 2.7% as forecast by the BoE and real earnings aren't keeping pace. 80k man is another £379 out of pocket. Meanwhile the Labours borrowing requirements are making the markets a tad queasy. They wonder whether there's a default in prospect. Not seriously but just enough to make them charge just a little bit more in interest. That, plus inflationary pressures will tick up the BoE official rate. Suddenly 80k man's mortgage - which was historically costing him a stupidly small rate of interest - is not quite so competitive. He's got a large house and a large loan on it. He's currently paying £2,503 pounds a month. His interest rate goes up a modest amount, only another 0.75%, but that's another £2,448 per annum he's got to find. He decides he must cut his cloth and decides to chop in his Range Rover and settle his PCP early and get a smaller cheaper car. Shed loads of others follow suit. (PCP is ripe for a fall anyway as there's billions upon billions tied up in it.) Car dealers are awash with second-hand cars they can't shift and have to lower prices.... The sales staff are twiddling their thumbs and a couple from each dealership are "let go".
As a regular critic of Corbyn, I have to say that the maifesto has blown me away. I find myself agreeing with most of it and also find it geuninely exciting. But it is going to be a big ask to persuade enough of the electorate that this can be delivered. There has to be real costings so the people who are fooled by the Tories that they will be worse off under Labour can see they will not be. Of course some people will be worse off, but it is important everybody knows where the line is.
This is a manifesto for a better britain and nobody can disagree with most of what is in it - just whether it is affordable. Mud wil be slung on behalf of the elite who are manipulating the working classes, so the message from Labour has to be clear and people have to believe it. Corbyn doesn't have a lot of time, and he should be thanking whoever leaked the manifesto!
From my perspective - If I was to be a little worse off financially and the NHS, Schools and Social Care were better, I would be better off being part of a better Britain. Standing for everybody and not just the elite few.
Higher corporation taxes work in other G7 countries.
I think we can raise it to 25% without too much risk.
I don't know, so I'm asking. Do these other countries have the equivalent of employers' national insurance contributions?
If we take the example of a man on £80k per year, his employer will also be paying £9,913.37 to HMRC for the privilege of employing him. If that is factored in does it create an entirely different picture? Are we really comparing like with like? It's a tax on employment, sure but maybe a cleaner, better, more efficient way of getting tax receipts off businesses, especially global corporations.
There are numerous, well sourced articles around the subject of Labour's economic record. Whether you're Labour, Tory, Lib Dem, Ukip or whatever it's never been easier to compare empirical, economic performance yet this myth promoted by the Tories persists.
The Labours, always, do overspend. It is not a myth. The last lot were lucky enough to have inherited an economy that was entering a very prosperous boom period. If they had been truly prudent, a word famously used by Gordon Brown on many, many occasions, they would have been running very large budget surpluses on account in anticipation of harder times ahead.
But no, their choice instead was to borrow more, spend more and put the future in hock with a variety of PFI schemes. We now owe in excess of £120bn on PFI schemes alone, not to mention the annual (high) interest payments. (Yes, I know they were invented by John Major but the really big PFI spends happened under Brown. Andy Burnham alone signed off on 221 PFI projects. Factor in the additional Govt. tax receipts from Brown's, what was it, a staggering 157 additional stealth taxes and you get the picture.
And, then, who can forget Jim Callaghan's 1976 crisis when the UK actually had to borrow money from the IMF because no one else would lend us any? Or Harold Wilson's comedy and utterly dishonest "The pound in your pocket" quote after the formal sterling devaluation?
So, yes, there are numerous well sourced articles on the Labours' economic record and if you delve in a little you find the true picture and the true costs and the true mess.
I'm not saying the Tories are great either. But you can't honestly believe the Labours were any good, can you? Even they don't think that! With Burnham apologising for the PFIs; Brown flogging off all the gold reserves at the lowest possible price; and then there's the infamous letter from Liam Byrne, Brown's Chief Secretary to the Treasury which spelt out the position succinctly "Dear Chief Secretary, I'm afraid that there is no money. Kind regards and good luck."
Now, let's fast forward. In case you've forgotten in October 2015 the Labours helped pass the Fiscal Charter which requires a Govt. to run a budget surplus from 2019/20. (How's that going I wonder?)
So, having initially fallen into this Tory trap and agreeing to their "fiscal charter" John McDonnell (after a particularly heated exchange with the Labours' paymasters) did a spectacular u-turn on the Fiscal Charter.
having previoulsy said "There is nothing progressive about running up excessive debt." he now says the Labour Manifesto is progressive! How can that be the case? And how good will the Labours' new(ish) Fiscal Credibility Rule turn out to be? It doesn't mind vast borrowing for capital projects for example. PFI revisited maybe or paying excessive interest, who knows?
So, say what you like about the Tories but please don't try to fool us into believing the Labours have a single sensible idea about budgetary prudence. Because that's a laughable suggestion. I wouldn't trust them with a five pence piece.
Labour supporters seem happy that rich(er) people and companies would be getting hit hard as a by-product of all these expensive policies; they are rubbing their hands with glee. But have they really thought about it? Do they know that the growth drivers in this country are small ely off the table because no businesses could afford expansion any more and even if they could, no one would have spare cash to buy their products! And that's before you factor in any unpleasantness as a result of Brexit.
Nothing is a free lunch, no matter how much the Labour dweebs try to pretend otherwise.
Where does anybody say there is a free lunch? I can't think of any political party that doesn't accept things have to be paid for. The political question is surely what things, for how much, paid for by whom?
Yeah but the Labours are hinting - actually scrub that - explicitly claiming that their policies will only impact the rich. So people are considering voting for them on that basis and are probably assuming they won't be caught by additional costs themselves. If they think it won't impact them, they are sadly mistaken.
And the guff above about profit. What does anybody think might go towards paying for additional research, business expansion and hiring more people. One thing's for sure a business that isn't allowed to make money is not going for the expansion option. In any event prospective punters wouldn't have any spare cash as it will all be taxed and they wouldn't be able to afford to buy anything much.
By way of example let's take someone with a salary of £80,000 living in an outer London burb. After income tax and NICs they currently take home £54,176.48. So, pretty much a third of their salary goes to HMRC. We don't know the Labours' actual proposals yet do we? It's supposed to be "just a modest bit more". But let's say it's an extra tax band which might take say £1,000. That's an extra grand they would not be able to spend straight away. Meanwhile 80k man's firm is getting hit with extra tax. They know this but will not want shareholders to suffer dividend cuts. (Otherwise investors would take their investments elsewhere, Europe probably as European companies from a very low base have started to see the merits of progressive dividend yields.) So what gets hit? Well 80k man won't get a pay rise. Meanwhile inflation has nudged up to 2.7% as forecast by the BoE and real earnings aren't keeping pace. 80k man is another £379 out of pocket. Meanwhile the Labours borrowing requirements are making the markets a tad queasy. They wonder whether there's a default in prospect. Not seriously but just enough to make them charge just a little bit more in interest. That, plus inflationary pressures will tick up the BoE official rate. Suddenly 80k man's mortgage - which was historically costing him a stupidly small rate of interest - is not quite so competitive. He's got a large house and a large loan on it. He's currently paying £2,503 pounds a month. His interest rate goes up a modest amount, only another 0.75%, but that's another £2,448 per annum he's got to find. He decides he must cut his cloth and decides to chop in his Range Rover and settle his PCP early and get a smaller cheaper car. Shed loads of others follow suit. (PCP is ripe for a fall anyway as there's billions upon billions tied up in it.) Car dealers are awash with second-hand cars they can't shift and have to lower prices.... The sales staff are twiddling their thumbs and a couple from each dealership are "let go".
Do you see where I am going with this?
A lovely Tory ghost story, send 'em to sleep all a-shiver!
Have I missed something? When did 'Labours' become a legitimate term to refer the the Labour Party? Just because the Tory Party can be replaced with the plural of Tory does not mean you can replace the Labour Party with the plural of Labour. It is not right and it will never be right. There is a clear grammatical reason why it doesn't work but I can't put my finger on it at the moment.
Edit: So I asked a friend who told me that labour is primarily a noun, and an abstract noun at that. Where as liberal, tory and conservative are adjectives.
It all sounds lovely, the perfect country to be, I just don't believe half of it for one minute. Principal yes but we'll never be able to pay for it and once the fall out happens it'll be paid for by future generations.
So it's spend spend spend, but where is al this coming from?
Depending where you read it and who you believe the complete manifesto is calculated to cost (just the new spending) between £60 and £90bn. That's before we set up this new bank with £250bn of funding and don't forget 10,00 more police at £300k
Yet the tax on those over £80k salaries is supposed to raise £6bn (which I think will be an extra 5% tax on everything over 80k or they could stagger it) and Corp Tax £19bn...... where's the rest coming from?
Interestingly on tax - what about Scotland, isn't their tax devolved to them? I.E. Labour wouldn't be able to set them.
It's a manifesto of investment in "ordinary working people", rather than more failed austerity that only continues to increase national debt while corporation tax continues to be cut under the Tories.
Vote Labour. I'm *hoping* they fulfil all those pledges but as long as they do a decent job of most, it'll be a damn sight better than the bloody difficult woman.
Just seems like a standard classic left wing Labour manifesto to me. Nothing i wouldn't expect so the 'leak' isn't exactly a groundbreaking surprise.
Hammer the top 5pc of earners who already pay very high levels of tax compared to equivalents around Europe, which is expected to fill the hole created by the massive increases in public sector spending.
Don't blame them for it - that's what they are clearly fighting for but seems the classic example of take other people's money till it runs out and then just spend spend spend. They won't get my vote. Will be interesting to see how many votes of the 'ordinary voting man' they do get.
THIS. I've not read the following 3 pages as I expect it will be full of Labour supporters spouting the same old drivel. Part of me hopes that Labour do win & so that the under 30's who have voted for Corbyn & his 1970's dogma will find out what the realities will be. All I've heard from Labour is that they will pay for this, pay for that, spend money here, spend money there & that it will be paid for by taxing companies & the rich. No details of how much the rise in tax will be of course.
And who was at the meeting to sign off the manifesto today..........that's right, Len MacLusky, the Unite leader. Best get my flares out again & my old Slade albums as its back to the 70's we go.
Isn't it more accurate golfie to say you haven't read the discussion around the leaked manifesto because it might challenge your existing opinions?
Like the one you hold about Labour always overspending and running up debts.
There are numerous, well sourced articles around the subject of Labour's economic record. Whether you're Labour, Tory, Lib Dem, Ukip or whatever it's never been easier to compare empirical, economic performance yet this myth promoted by the Tories persists.
The Labours, always, do overspend. It is not a myth. The last lot were lucky enough to have inherited an economy that was entering a very prosperous boom period. If they had been truly prudent, a word famously used by Gordon Brown on many, many occasions, they would have been running very large budget surpluses on account in anticipation of harder times ahead.
But no, their choice instead was to borrow more, spend more and put the future in hock with a variety of PFI schemes. We now owe in excess of £120bn on PFI schemes alone, not to mention the annual (high) interest payments. (Yes, I know they were invented by John Major but the really big PFI spends happened under Brown. Andy Burnham alone signed off on 221 PFI projects. Factor in the additional Govt. tax receipts from Brown's, what was it, a staggering 157 additional stealth taxes and you get the picture.
And, then, who can forget Jim Callaghan's 1976 crisis when the UK actually had to borrow money from the IMF because no one else would lend us any? Or Harold Wilson's comedy and utterly dishonest "The pound in your pocket" quote after the formal sterling devaluation?
So, yes, there are numerous well sourced articles on the Labours' economic record and if you delve in a little you find the true picture and the true costs and the true mess.
I'm not saying the Tories are great either. But you can't honestly believe the Labours were any good, can you? Even they don't think that! With Burnham apologising for the PFIs; Brown flogging off all the gold reserves at the lowest possible price; and then there's the infamous letter from Liam Byrne, Brown's Chief Secretary to the Treasury which spelt out the position succinctly "Dear Chief Secretary, I'm afraid that there is no money. Kind regards and good luck."
Now, let's fast forward. In case you've forgotten in October 2015 the Labours helped pass the Fiscal Charter which requires a Govt. to run a budget surplus from 2019/20. (How's that going I wonder?)
So, having initially fallen into this Tory trap and agreeing to their "fiscal charter" John McDonnell (after a particularly heated exchange with the Labours' paymasters) did a spectacular u-turn on the Fiscal Charter.
having previoulsy said "There is nothing progressive about running up excessive debt." he now says the Labour Manifesto is progressive! How can that be the case? And how good will the Labours' new(ish) Fiscal Credibility Rule turn out to be? It doesn't mind vast borrowing for capital projects for example. PFI revisited maybe or paying excessive interest, who knows?
So, say what you like about the Tories but please don't try to fool us into believing the Labours have a single sensible idea about budgetary prudence. Because that's a laughable suggestion. I wouldn't trust them with a five pence piece.
Labour supporters seem happy that rich(er) people and companies would be getting hit hard as a by-product of all these expensive policies; they are rubbing their hands with glee. But have they really thought about it? Do they know that the growth drivers in this country are small businesses which will also be hit by additional corporation tax not just the nasty big corporations? Do they know that the choice is between companies paying more tax or growing a business and paying and recruiting more staff. Is that a sensible choice? And one that they really want to be taken forward? They think it will not impact them and fortunately it's unlikely because as things stand Corbyn has no chance. But how would they get on if McDonnell got the chance to push out the BoE's inflation target from 2% to 4% while pay rises would be completely off the table because no businesses could afford expansion any more and even if they could, no one would have spare cash to buy their products! And that's before you factor in any unpleasantness as a result of Brexit.
Nothing is a free lunch, no matter how much the Labour dweebs try to pretend otherwise.
There's an awful lot of words there but little in the way of detailed, analytical comparison of debt to GDP ratios, growth, etc let alone acknowledgement of where that debt was spent (or invested if you want to put it another way). Your basic conclusion that Brown was lucky enough to ride a Tory inspired boom for 10 years (!) seems based on little more than what you would like to believe rather than is evidenced.
Let's not forget that the Tories backed Brown's spending plans...
(Health warning - reading that article in light of the last 7 years may increase blood pressure to critical levels)
That's before acknowledging Brown's role in leading the G20 during the height of the banking crisis that has lead to him being far more highly regarded outside the UK than within it.
Think the post above was getting too long to quote so to finish...
...I'll be honest if you include in your evidence that Labour is useless with the economy is an 'in-joke' of a letter to a successor then you might as well go back further to Churchills time or perhaps more relevantly Reginald Maudling message to Jim Callaghan, "Sorry old cock, to leave it in this shape". Byrnes letter was a poor taste joke between two politicians not a serious review of the economy.
Higher corporation taxes work in other G7 countries.
I think we can raise it to 25% without too much risk.
Donald Trump will unveil a proposal for a major corporate tax cut, involving dramatically cutting corporate tax rates to 15% from 39.6% and ending taxation of corporate profits earned overseas.
Was he just doing this as a one of Guinness to get some of that offshore money back into the American economy? I thought I read somewhere it was like a one off deal?
It all sounds lovely, the perfect country to be, I just don't believe half of it for one minute. Principal yes but we'll never be able to pay for it and once the fall out happens it'll be paid for by future generations.
So it's spend spend spend, but where is al this coming from?
Depending where you read it and who you believe the complete manifesto is calculated to cost (just the new spending) between £60 and £90bn. That's before we set up this new bank with £250bn of funding and don't forget 10,00 more police at £300k
Yet the tax on those over £80k salaries is supposed to raise £6bn (which I think will be an extra 5% tax on everything over 80k or they could stagger it) and Corp Tax £19bn...... where's the rest coming from?
Interestingly on tax - what about Scotland, isn't their tax devolved to them? I.E. Labour wouldn't be able to set them.
I think this issue with people presenting a salary of £80k as being in some way "normal" is definitely a regional thing. Let's not lose sight that it is more than three times the national average, which in itself will be inflated by the higher wages in London.
£80k a year is a huge amount of money for many, many people and expecting sympathy for the plight of someone who is unhappy with potentially paying VAT on private school fees for their kids when we have nurses using food banks is asking a lot.
Imagine someone living in a London suburb, earning £80k, driving a Range Rover and with a hefty mortgage. And then, despite the fact that the Bank of England Base Rate hasn't increased since July 2007, he's convinced it's going to increase by 75 basis points. (He knows the last Labour Government saw the BoE Base Rate drop from 6.25% to 0.5%, but he's ignoring that for now).
Poor chap! He's really going to get it bad. Especially seeing that his mortgage will go up (he thinks) by 75 basis points immediately after the Tories lose office.
I hope he can find some consolation in some of the things that would improve for him.
- If the interest rate on his mortgage does increase (and I'm happy he realises it's "stupidly low" - after all, he sounds like a sensible chap that would have factored that into his planning) and if inflation is increasing, it's very likely his big house in the suburbs will increase in value. He'll have a considerable chunk of change in equity. Lucky chap!
- I hope he drives (excuse the pun) a hard bargain when chopping in his Range Rover. (Why he'd want a car like that in the suburbs, I wouldn't know). He will find it very easy to source a much more cost-effective, appropriate jam jar (after all, dealers are awash with secod hand cars they can't shift and have to lower prices. That will save him a fortune. Lucky chap!
- He may decide to commute by train instead of driving. I know! It sounds an horrendous prospect - certainly after another seven years of Conservative rule ensuring that fares are expensive, the service is terrible and the money pumped in to the industry (public and private) finds its way - in many cases - to foreign rail companies, many of which are State-owned. I am sure he finds it galling that rail fares are used to prop up foreign governments. So, with all the changes that take place in the UK economy, one that he will be very pleased about is renationalisation of the rail industry, resulting in lower fares, better service and a net increase in Treasury revenue. Lucky chap!
- His employer's fiscal prudence, as described, is likely to preserve good dividends for their shareholders. So I am sure he'll be able to make use of mechanisms to benefit from this increase, such as Share Incentive Plans, Save As You Earn, Company Share Option Schemes, Enterprise Management Incentives and ISAs, none of which are threatened by Labour (and many of which he can thank Labour for introducing). Lucky chap!
- And, as he's paying less for his car, less for his commute, less for his fuel, less for Road Tax, less for motor insurance, etc, he may decide to invest his newly-found spare money. And what better time to invest than when interest rates are increasing? (Again, I don't think they will, but if they do, why wouldn't he want to take advantage if they do?) Lucky chap!
- He will benefit from lower crime, probably reducing his home insurance costs, because, thankfully, Labour has committed additional police, ending the Tory cutbacks in policing. Lucky chap!
- And he'll benefit from an improving, protected NHS, meaning his healthcare will be taken care of. And that of his employers. And their staff and customers. He'll get the double bonus of improved health service and the knowledge it's no longer under threat of being sold off. Oh, and, while he's thinking about it, he's pretty damn pleased that he'll be able to visit loved ones in hospital without having to pay car park charges. Lucky chap!
- And, while it's of less immediate benefit to him financially (and, after all, unlike some people, he doesn't work out the cost of everything at the expense of understanding the value of everything too) he will sleep better at night knowing we are less likely to fall into the trap of unilaterally bombing foreign countries, which he knows, ultimately, results in death, injury, destruction and increasing refugee numbers and pressure of asylum claims. Lucky everyone!
Is there a correlation between with opposition parties? (Think Michael Howard, any Liberal dem leader and Corbyn)
The less likely they are to gain power, the more excessive their manifesto?
I wonder if some think tank have looked at this.
FWIW IMO A great, proper Labour manifesto, but many will worry about how the land of milk and honey will be financed - as well as past broken promises by every government, ever.
Imagine someone living in a London suburb, earning £80k, driving a Range Rover and with a hefty mortgage. And then, despite the fact that the Bank of England Base Rate hasn't increased since July 2007, he's convinced it's going to increase by 75 basis points. (He knows the last Labour Government saw the BoE Base Rate drop from 6.25% to 0.5%, but he's ignoring that for now).
Poor chap! He's really going to get it bad. Especially seeing that his mortgage will go up (he thinks) by 75 basis points immediately after the Tories lose office.
I hope he can find some consolation in some of the things that would improve for him.
- If the interest rate on his mortgage does increase (and I'm happy he realises it's "stupidly low" - after all, he sounds like a sensible chap that would have factored that into his planning) and if inflation is increasing, it's very likely his big house in the suburbs will increase in value. He'll have a considerable chunk of change in equity. Lucky chap!
- I hope he drives (excuse the pun) a hard bargain when chopping in his Range Rover. (Why he'd want a car like that in the suburbs, I wouldn't know). He will find it very easy to source a much more cost-effective, appropriate jam jar (after all, dealers are awash with secod hand cars they can't shift and have to lower prices. That will save him a fortune. Lucky chap!
- He may decide to commute by train instead of driving. I know! It sounds an horrendous prospect - certainly after another seven years of Conservative rule ensuring that fares are expensive, the service is terrible and the money pumped in to the industry (public and private) finds its way - in many cases - to foreign rail companies, many of which are State-owned. I am sure he finds it galling that rail fares are used to prop up foreign governments. So, with all the changes that take place in the UK economy, one that he will be very pleased about is renationalisation of the rail industry, resulting in lower fares, better service and a net increase in Treasury revenue. Lucky chap!
- His employer's fiscal prudence, as described, is likely to preserve good dividends for their shareholders. So I am sure he'll be able to make use of mechanisms to benefit from this increase, such as Share Incentive Plans, Save As You Earn, Company Share Option Schemes, Enterprise Management Incentives and ISAs, none of which are threatened by Labour (and many of which he can thank Labour for introducing). Lucky chap!
- And, as he's paying less for his car, less for his commute, less for his fuel, less for Road Tax, less for motor insurance, etc, he may decide to invest his newly-found spare money. And what better time to invest than when interest rates are increasing? (Again, I don't think they will, but if they do, why wouldn't he want to take advantage if they do?) Lucky chap!
- He will benefit from lower crime, probably reducing his home insurance costs, because, thankfully, Labour has committed additional police, ending the Tory cutbacks in policing. Lucky chap!
- And he'll benefit from an improving, protected NHS, meanning his healthcare will be taken care of. And that of his employers. And their staff and customers. He'll get the double bonus of improved health service and the knowledge it's no longer under threat of being sold off. Oh, and, while he's thinking about it, he's pretty damn pleased that he'll be able to visit loved ones in hospital without having to pay carp park charges. Lucky chap!
- And, while it's of less immediate benefit to him financially (and, after all, unlike some people, he doesn't work out the cost of everything at the expense of understanding the value of everything too) he will sleep better at night knowing we are less likely to fall into the trap of unilaterally bombing foreign countries, which he knows, ultimately, results in death, injury, destruction and increasing refugee numbers and pressure of asylum claims. Lucky everyone!
Have I missed something? When did 'Labours' become a legitimate term to refer the the Labour Party? Just because the Tory Party can be replaced with the plural of Tory does not mean you can replace the Labour Party with the plural of Labour. It is not right and it will never be right. There is a clear grammatical reason why it doesn't work but I can't put my finger on it at the moment.
Edit: So I asked a friend who told me that labour is primarily a noun, and an abstract noun at that. Where as liberal, tory and conservative are adjectives.
I have no idea if you're correct or not. It's just me being amused that just about every other party you can think of (apart from UKIP), gets to have an "s" on the end when talking about its collective state. I didn't see why the Labours deserved to be left out. But perhaps it should be the Labourers? Or if Jeremy Corbyn shagged a poodle maybe there would be labouroodles. Or was that something to do with Labradors I forget.
I'm not looking for any argument, but has there been any documented evidence to show if any/how many nurses use food banks? I've spent some time researching and have found a couple of Nursing Times reports eg a couple of 22/23 year old single parent student nurses who said they visited for baby food. Also last year in The Times The Royal College of Nursing said that more than 700 nurses and healthcare assistants had applied for grants to cope with the cost of food, travel, rent or mortgage payments in 2016, a 50 per cent increase on 2010. Are HCA's nurses? Otherwise I've drawn a blank.
There has been a disgusting rise in food bank use which is totally unacceptable.
Happy to be corrected, but it does seem an emotive 'club' being bandied about by some.
Have I missed something? When did 'Labours' become a legitimate term to refer the the Labour Party? Just because the Tory Party can be replaced with the plural of Tory does not mean you can replace the Labour Party with the plural of Labour. It is not right and it will never be right. There is a clear grammatical reason why it doesn't work but I can't put my finger on it at the moment.
Edit: So I asked a friend who told me that labour is primarily a noun, and an abstract noun at that. Where as liberal, tory and conservative are adjectives.
I have no idea if you're correct or not. It's just me being amused that just about every other party you can think of (apart from UKIP), gets to have an "s" on the end when talking about its collective state. I didn't see why the Labours deserved to be left out. But perhaps it should be the Labourers? Or if Jeremy Corbyn shagged a poodle maybe there would be labouroodles. Or was that something to do with Labradors I forget.
How about "Socialists"? It seems odd to make up a word that doesn't work, when there's already one that does.
I'm not looking for any argument, but has there been any documented evidence to show if any/how many nurses use food banks? I've spent some time researching and have found a couple of Nursing Times reports eg a couple of 22/23 year old single parent student nurses who said they visited for baby food. Also last year in The Times The Royal College of Nursing said that more than 700 nurses and healthcare assistants had applied for grants to cope with the cost of food, travel, rent or mortgage payments in 2016, a 50 per cent increase on 2010. Are HCA's nurses? Otherwise I've drawn a blank.
There has been a disgusting rise in food bank use which is totally unacceptable.
Happy to be corrected, but it does seem an emotive 'club' being bandied about by some.
This is going to become one of the great non event stories.
It matters not how many nurses had to rely on a food hand out or not. The fact that in Theresa Mays booming Britain that ANYONE should have to rely on a food bank should be reason enough to condemn.
Something is patently wrong in a society where this type of charity is growing.
Have I missed something? When did 'Labours' become a legitimate term to refer the the Labour Party? Just because the Tory Party can be replaced with the plural of Tory does not mean you can replace the Labour Party with the plural of Labour. It is not right and it will never be right. There is a clear grammatical reason why it doesn't work but I can't put my finger on it at the moment.
Edit: So I asked a friend who told me that labour is primarily a noun, and an abstract noun at that. Where as liberal, tory and conservative are adjectives.
I have no idea if you're correct or not. It's just me being amused that just about every other party you can think of (apart from UKIP), gets to have an "s" on the end when talking about its collective state. I didn't see why the Labours deserved to be left out. But perhaps it should be the Labourers? Or if Jeremy Corbyn shagged a poodle maybe there would be labouroodles. Or was that something to do with Labradors I forget.
How about "Socialists"? It seems odd to make up a word that doesn't work, when there's already one that does.
I suppose the same could be said for those that class the Tories as 'murderers', 'scum' and the like.
Maybe it's just me that sees it happening from both sides but only one seems to get enraged by it.
I'm not looking for any argument, but has there been any documented evidence to show if any/how many nurses use food banks? I've spent some time researching and have found a couple of Nursing Times reports eg a couple of 22/23 year old single parent student nurses who said they visited for baby food. Also last year in The Times The Royal College of Nursing said that more than 700 nurses and healthcare assistants had applied for grants to cope with the cost of food, travel, rent or mortgage payments in 2016, a 50 per cent increase on 2010. Are HCA's nurses? Otherwise I've drawn a blank.
There has been a disgusting rise in food bank use which is totally unacceptable.
Happy to be corrected, but it does seem an emotive 'club' being bandied about by some.
Without knowing what the number is, what would you say is an acceptable number of key, critical healthcare workers working full-time, having to queue up for free food? Because I'm absolutely certain that, in 21st century Britain, anywhere north of zero is a shameful disgrace.
There are numerous, well sourced articles around the subject of Labour's economic record. Whether you're Labour, Tory, Lib Dem, Ukip or whatever it's never been easier to compare empirical, economic performance yet this myth promoted by the Tories persists.
The Labours, always, do overspend. It is not a myth. The last lot were lucky enough to have inherited an economy that was entering a very prosperous boom period. If they had been t, a word famously used by Gordon Brown on many, many occasions, they would have been running very large budget surpluses on account in anticipation of harder times ahead.
But no, their choice instead was to borrow more, spend more and put the future in hock with a variety of PFI schemes. We now owe in excess of £120bn on PFI schemes alone, not to mention the annual (high) interest payments. (Yes, I know they were invented by John Major but the really big PFI spends happened under Brown. Andy Burnham alone signed off on 221 PFI projects.
And, then, who can forget Jim Callaghan's 1976 crisis when the UK actually had to borrow money from the IMF because no one else would lend us any? Or Harold Wilson's comedy and utterly dishonest "The pound in your pocket" quote after the formal sterling devaluation?
So, yes, there are numerous well sourced articles on the Labours' economic record and if you delve in a little you find the true picture and the true costs and the true mess.
I'm not saying the Tories are great either. But you can't honestly believe the Labours were any good, can you? Even they don't think that! With Burnham apologising for the PFIs; Brown flogging off all the gold reserves at the lowest possible price; and then there's the infamous letter from Liam Byrne, Brown's Chief Secretary to the Treasury which spelt out the position succinctly "Dear Chief Secretary, I'm afraid that there is no money. Kind regards and good luck."
Now, let's fast forward. In case you've forgotten in October 2015 the Labours helped pass the Fiscal Charter which requires a Govt. to run a budget surplus from 2019/20. (How's that going I wonder?)
So, having initially fallen into this Tory trap and agreeing to their "fiscal charter" John McDonnell (after a particularly heated exchange with the Labours' paymasters) did a spectacular u-turn on the Fiscal Charter.
having previoulsy said "There is nothing progressive about running up excessive debt." he now says the Labour Manifesto is progressive! How can that be the case? And how good will the Labours' new(ish) Fiscal Credibility Rule turn out to be? It doesn't mind vast borrowing for capital projects for example. PFI revisited maybe or paying excessive interest, who knows?
So, say what you like about the Tories but please don't try to fool us into believing the Labours have a single sensible idea about budgetary prudence. Because that's a laughable suggestion. I wouldn't trust them with a five pence piece.
Labour supporters seem happy that rich(er) people and companies would be getting hit hard as a by-product of all these expensive policies; they are rubbing their hands with glee. But have they really thought about it? Do they know that the growth drivers in this country are small businesses which will also be hit by additional corporation tax not just the nasty big corporations? Do they know that the choice is between companies paying more tax or growing a business and paying and recruiting more staff. Is that a sensible choice? And one that they really want to be taken forward? They think it will not impact them and fortunately it's unlikely because as things stand Corbyn has no chance. But how would they get on if McDonnell got the chance to push out the BoE's inflation target from 2% to 4% while pay rises would be completely off the table because no businesses could afford expansion any more and even if they could, no one would have spare cash to buy their products! And that's before you factor in any unpleasantness as a result of Brexit.
Nothing is a free lunch, no matter how much the Labour dweebs try to pretend otherwise.
Where does anybody say there is a free lunch? I can't think of any political party that doesn't accept things have to be paid for. The political question is surely what things, for how much, paid for by whom?
Yeah but the Labours are hinting - actually scrub that - explicitly claiming that their policies will only impact the rich. So people are considering voting for them on that basis and are probably assuming they won't be caught by additional costs themselves. If they think it won't impact them, they are sadly mistaken.
And the guff above about profit. What does anybody think might go towards paying for additional research, business expansion and hiring more people. One thing's for sure a business that isn't allowed to make money is not going for the expansion option. In any event prospective punters wouldn't have any spare cash as it will all be taxed and they wouldn't be able to afford to buy anything much.
By way of example let's take someone with a salary of £80,000 living in an outer London burb. After income tax and NICs they currently take home £54,176.48. So, pretty much a third of their salary goes to HMRC. We don't know the Labours' actual proposals yet do we? It's supposed to be "just a modest bit more". But let's say it's an extra tax band which might take say £1,000. That's an extra grand they would not be able to spend straight away. Meanwhile 80k man's firm is getting hit with extra tax. They know this but will not want shareholders to suffer dividend cuts. (Otherwise investors would take their investments elsewhere, Europe probably as European companies from a very low base have started to see the merits of progressive dividend yields.) So what gets hit? Well 80k man won't get a pay rise. Meanwhile inflation has nudged up to 2.7% as forecast by the BoE and real earnings aren't keeping pace. 80k man is another £379 out of pocket. Meanwhile the Labours borrowing requirements are making the markets a tad queasy. They wonder whether there's a default in prospect. Not seriously but just enough to make them charge just a little bit more in interest. That, plus inflationary pressures will tick up the BoE official rate. Suddenly 80k man's mortgage - which was historically costing him a stupidly small rate of interest - is not quite so competitive. He's got a large house and a large loan on it. He's currently paying £2,503 pounds a month. His interest rate goes up a modest amount, only another 0.75%, but that's another £2,448 per annum he's got to find. He decides he must cut his cloth and decides to chop in his Range Rover and settle his PCP early and get a smaller cheaper car. Shed loads of others follow suit. (PCP is ripe for a fall anyway as there's billions upon billions tied up in it.) Car dealers are awash with second-hand cars they can't shift and have to lower prices.... The sales staff are twiddling their thumbs and a couple from each dealership are "let go".
Do you see where I am going with this?
If the bloke sadly downsizes his Range Rover to a smaller unfamiliar car and has a serious accident, he might need to be rushed to Accident and Emergency. Do you see where I'm going with this?
Comments
I find the reaction of the Tories and the right wing press pretty distasteful. Debate it, sure. Pull it apart, sure. But it goes way beyond that already, perjorative personal attacks which give the impression that even offering so called left wing ideas is almost a treasonable offence in 2017 Britain.
It's worth remembering that both France and the US - the US - had presidential candidates who in many ways offered a manifesto just as left wing as this one. Well I got the impression that while both candidates were attacked by opponents, neither suffered such full frontal personal abuse as the main thrust of the argument against. Maybe I am wrong there, perhaps @SDAddick has a view on how Sanders was treated. Anyway
Should we rationally debate the idea that both corporations and rich individuals should pay more tax to help fund the NHS and social care? Yes, for me.
Should we re-think the uniquely, preposterously high tuition fees of our unis? As someone supporting two kids at uni who are not even my own, yes, from me.
Should we look at whether the privatisation of utilities, especially the railways, has been in the country's best interests? Yes from me, all day long.
Does Corbyn have a point when he says the "war on terror" hasn't worked? Yes, from me.
Actually, unless it's buried there, I regret that Labour has not addressed the Politics of Tax, that is to say, strenghening HMRC and working with other countries to ensure that Google, Facebook et al pay the tax they already should,before we even talk about raising the rates.
I have a feeling that if people ignore Murdoch and Dacre, and debate the issues, we may see the Tory lead narrowing.
And the guff above about profit. What does anybody think might go towards paying for additional research, business expansion and hiring more people. One thing's for sure a business that isn't allowed to make money is not going for the expansion option. In any event prospective punters wouldn't have any spare cash as it will all be taxed and they wouldn't be able to afford to buy anything much.
By way of example let's take someone with a salary of £80,000 living in an outer London burb. After income tax and NICs they currently take home £54,176.48. So, pretty much a third of their salary goes to HMRC.
We don't know the Labours' actual proposals yet do we? It's supposed to be "just a modest bit more". But let's say it's an extra tax band which might take say £1,000.
That's an extra grand they would not be able to spend straight away. Meanwhile 80k man's firm is getting hit with extra tax. They know this but will not want shareholders to suffer dividend cuts. (Otherwise investors would take their investments elsewhere, Europe probably as European companies from a very low base have started to see the merits of progressive dividend yields.) So what gets hit? Well 80k man won't get a pay rise. Meanwhile inflation has nudged up to 2.7% as forecast by the BoE and real earnings aren't keeping pace. 80k man is another £379 out of pocket.
Meanwhile the Labours borrowing requirements are making the markets a tad queasy. They wonder whether there's a default in prospect. Not seriously but just enough to make them charge just a little bit more in interest. That, plus inflationary pressures will tick up the BoE official rate. Suddenly 80k man's mortgage - which was historically costing him a stupidly small rate of interest - is not quite so competitive. He's got a large house and a large loan on it. He's currently paying £2,503 pounds a month. His interest rate goes up a modest amount, only another 0.75%, but that's another £2,448 per annum he's got to find. He decides he must cut his cloth and decides to chop in his Range Rover and settle his PCP early and get a smaller cheaper car. Shed loads of others follow suit. (PCP is ripe for a fall anyway as there's billions upon billions tied up in it.) Car dealers are awash with second-hand cars they can't shift and have to lower prices.... The sales staff are twiddling their thumbs and a couple from each dealership are "let go".
Do you see where I am going with this?
This is a manifesto for a better britain and nobody can disagree with most of what is in it - just whether it is affordable. Mud wil be slung on behalf of the elite who are manipulating the working classes, so the message from Labour has to be clear and people have to believe it. Corbyn doesn't have a lot of time, and he should be thanking whoever leaked the manifesto!
From my perspective - If I was to be a little worse off financially and the NHS, Schools and Social Care were better, I would be better off being part of a better Britain. Standing for everybody and not just the elite few.
If we take the example of a man on £80k per year, his employer will also be paying £9,913.37 to HMRC for the privilege of employing him. If that is factored in does it create an entirely different picture? Are we really comparing like with like? It's a tax on employment, sure but maybe a cleaner, better, more efficient way of getting tax receipts off businesses, especially global corporations.
So it's spend spend spend, but where is al this coming from?
Depending where you read it and who you believe the complete manifesto is calculated to cost (just the new spending) between £60 and £90bn. That's before we set up this new bank with £250bn of funding and don't forget 10,00 more police at £300k
Yet the tax on those over £80k salaries is supposed to raise £6bn (which I think will be an extra 5% tax on everything over 80k or they could stagger it) and Corp Tax £19bn...... where's the rest coming from?
Interestingly on tax - what about Scotland, isn't their tax devolved to them? I.E. Labour wouldn't be able to set them.
Let's not forget that the Tories backed Brown's spending plans...
telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562023/Tories-vow-to-match-Labour-spending.html
(Health warning - reading that article in light of the last 7 years may increase blood pressure to critical levels)
That's before acknowledging Brown's role in leading the G20 during the height of the banking crisis that has lead to him being far more highly regarded outside the UK than within it.
...I'll be honest if you include in your evidence that Labour is useless with the economy is an 'in-joke' of a letter to a successor then you might as well go back further to Churchills time or perhaps more relevantly Reginald Maudling message to Jim Callaghan, "Sorry old cock, to leave it in this shape". Byrnes letter was a poor taste joke between two politicians not a serious review of the economy.
£80k a year is a huge amount of money for many, many people and expecting sympathy for the plight of someone who is unhappy with potentially paying VAT on private school fees for their kids when we have nurses using food banks is asking a lot.
Poor chap! He's really going to get it bad. Especially seeing that his mortgage will go up (he thinks) by 75 basis points immediately after the Tories lose office.
I hope he can find some consolation in some of the things that would improve for him.
- If the interest rate on his mortgage does increase (and I'm happy he realises it's "stupidly low" - after all, he sounds like a sensible chap that would have factored that into his planning) and if inflation is increasing, it's very likely his big house in the suburbs will increase in value. He'll have a considerable chunk of change in equity. Lucky chap!
- I hope he drives (excuse the pun) a hard bargain when chopping in his Range Rover. (Why he'd want a car like that in the suburbs, I wouldn't know). He will find it very easy to source a much more cost-effective, appropriate jam jar (after all, dealers are awash with secod hand cars they can't shift and have to lower prices. That will save him a fortune. Lucky chap!
- He may decide to commute by train instead of driving. I know! It sounds an horrendous prospect - certainly after another seven years of Conservative rule ensuring that fares are expensive, the service is terrible and the money pumped in to the industry (public and private) finds its way - in many cases - to foreign rail companies, many of which are State-owned. I am sure he finds it galling that rail fares are used to prop up foreign governments. So, with all the changes that take place in the UK economy, one that he will be very pleased about is renationalisation of the rail industry, resulting in lower fares, better service and a net increase in Treasury revenue. Lucky chap!
- His employer's fiscal prudence, as described, is likely to preserve good dividends for their shareholders. So I am sure he'll be able to make use of mechanisms to benefit from this increase, such as Share Incentive Plans, Save As You Earn, Company Share Option Schemes, Enterprise Management Incentives and ISAs, none of which are threatened by Labour (and many of which he can thank Labour for introducing). Lucky chap!
- And, as he's paying less for his car, less for his commute, less for his fuel, less for Road Tax, less for motor insurance, etc, he may decide to invest his newly-found spare money. And what better time to invest than when interest rates are increasing? (Again, I don't think they will, but if they do, why wouldn't he want to take advantage if they do?) Lucky chap!
- He will benefit from lower crime, probably reducing his home insurance costs, because, thankfully, Labour has committed additional police, ending the Tory cutbacks in policing. Lucky chap!
- And he'll benefit from an improving, protected NHS, meaning his healthcare will be taken care of. And that of his employers. And their staff and customers. He'll get the double bonus of improved health service and the knowledge it's no longer under threat of being sold off. Oh, and, while he's thinking about it, he's pretty damn pleased that he'll be able to visit loved ones in hospital without having to pay car park charges. Lucky chap!
- And, while it's of less immediate benefit to him financially (and, after all, unlike some people, he doesn't work out the cost of everything at the expense of understanding the value of everything too) he will sleep better at night knowing we are less likely to fall into the trap of unilaterally bombing foreign countries, which he knows, ultimately, results in death, injury, destruction and increasing refugee numbers and pressure of asylum claims. Lucky everyone!
I hope he makes the right decision on 8 June.
(Think Michael Howard, any Liberal dem leader and Corbyn)
The less likely they are to gain power, the more excessive their manifesto?
I wonder if some think tank have looked at this.
FWIW IMO A great, proper Labour manifesto, but many will worry about how the land of milk and honey will be financed - as well as past broken promises by every government, ever.
looking for any argument, but has there been any documented evidence to show if any/how many nurses use food banks?
I've spent some time researching and have found a couple of Nursing Times reports eg a couple of 22/23 year old single parent student nurses who said they visited for baby food.
Also last year in The Times The Royal College of Nursing said that more than 700 nurses and healthcare assistants had applied for grants to cope with the cost of food, travel, rent or mortgage payments in 2016, a 50 per cent increase on 2010.
Are HCA's nurses?
Otherwise I've drawn a blank.
There has been a disgusting rise in food bank use which is totally unacceptable.
Happy to be corrected, but it does seem an emotive 'club' being bandied about by some.
It matters not how many nurses had to rely on a food hand out or not. The fact that in Theresa Mays booming Britain that ANYONE should have to rely on a food bank should be reason enough to condemn.
Something is patently wrong in a society where this type of charity is growing.
Maybe it's just me that sees it happening from both sides but only one seems to get enraged by it.
2017 - English hospitals effectively shut down
Do you see where I'm going with this?