Labour ?

However you want to look at it, Corbyn has been ill advised... 

So, Corbyn says we suffer from terrorism because of our policies.  What about Germany (which has welcomed many many refugees), Sweden (one of the most neutral and welcoming countries) and Belgium (hardly an aggressive world-player).  Each of these countries have been the victim of terrorism.  Corbyn isn't in the real world.

Just seen Corbyn being mercilessly mauled by Andrew Neil. The man (Corbyn that is) really is a joke. When the nation desperately needs an effective opposition, and viable alternative, to the Tories, we get this sad apology for a politician and leader. Oh how I would love to be able to vote for a Labour Party led by a man of honour, principles and vision, capable of melding socialist principles with free market pragmatism. 

Corbyn might have chosen better timing but the reaction of TM while at the G7 is pretty disgraceful in my view. She has grossly distorted what he said. He didn't get even close to saying that the attack in Manchester was "our fault". To use a sporting expression, this looks to me to be a classic case of TM 'playing the man and not the ball'.    

Timmo1341 posted:

When the nation desperately needs an effective opposition, and viable alternative, to the Tories, we get this sad apology for a politician and leader.

You might get your wish, perhaps the Tories will make a good opposition, but I doubt it.

I know it’s hard to believe, but Corbyn’s popularity appears to be growing, I work with a couple 30 year olds who normally vote conservatives, today they both said they will be voting labour.

Why, because they like Corbyn, as a person. (Irrelevant questions from a smart arsse political commentator isn’t going to change that, probably the opposite). One of them asked, why would anybody vote against more money for schools, police and NHS.

MDS posted:

Corbyn might have chosen better timing but the reaction of TM while at the G7 is pretty disgraceful in my view. She has grossly distorted what he said. He didn't get even close to saying that the attack in Manchester was "our fault". To use a sporting expression, this looks to me to be a classic case of TM 'playing the man and not the ball'.    

What better time to discuss the reasons for a terrorist atrocity than just after a terrorist atrocity.

The only people that will be offended are the feeble minded people who are gullible enough to believe they should be offended.

I live in greater Manchester and work in Salford. Contrary to what is said in the media, everybody in Manchester doesn’t know somebody that was involved. In fact I don’t know anybody that knows somebody who knows anybody that was involved.

Nobody’s offended by Corbyn’s comments, most agree with him.

fatcat posted:

Timmo1341 posted:

When the nation desperately needs an effective opposition, and viable alternative, to the Tories, we get this sad apology for a politician and leader.

You might get your wish, perhaps the Tories will make a good opposition, but I doubt it.

I know it’s hard to believe, but Corbyn’s popularity appears to be growing, I work with a couple 30 year olds who normally vote conservatives, today they both said they will be voting labour.

Why, because they like Corbyn, as a person. (Irrelevant questions from a smart arsse political commentator isn’t going to change that, probably the opposite). One of them asked, why would anybody vote against more money for schools, police and NHS.

 

Labour are promising More money for everything, schools, police, NHS,  bones for dogs...lollipops for children 

They of course can make these promises, save in the knowledge they will never have to implement them..

It's interesting how some polls seem to be showing Labour narrowing the gap.  It looks pretty clear that the Conservatives have two essential messages that they want to get across at ever opportunity (a) Brexit - presumably to appeal to the majority of the electorate who voted for it and (b) to focus on Corbyn the man e.g. questioning his patriotism, accusing him of being the terrorists'/IRA's friend, citing his anti-nuclear stance and so on.

What seems to be happening is that domestic policies keep getting air-time, where Labour and Lib-Dem manifestos promise to do some popular things. In contrast the Tories domestic policies haven't fared well witness the Dementia Tax and yet another immigration target. Second, Corbyn seems to be doing a pretty fair job of handling the interviews and deflecting the personal (and in my view, disgracefully exaggerated) attacks on him. Indeed, I can see a growing number of voters, especially the young, seeing him as a man of principle and integrity, and warming to him because of the bullying tactics of the Tories, the Press and interviewers.  TM wants this to be see as a contest between her as strong & competent v him being weak and incompetent.  The risk she runs is that increasing numbers of voters see this as a contest between the shrill and bullying woman v the decent chap who doesn't shout back and is promising to do things differently.

This might be interesting after all. 

wenger2015 posted:

fatcat posted:

Timmo1341 posted:

When the nation desperately needs an effective opposition, and viable alternative, to the Tories, we get this sad apology for a politician and leader.

You might get your wish, perhaps the Tories will make a good opposition, but I doubt it.

I know it’s hard to believe, but Corbyn’s popularity appears to be growing, I work with a couple 30 year olds who normally vote conservatives, today they both said they will be voting labour.

Why, because they like Corbyn, as a person. (Irrelevant questions from a smart arsse political commentator isn’t going to change that, probably the opposite). One of them asked, why would anybody vote against more money for schools, police and NHS.

 

Labour are promising More money for everything, schools, police, NHS,  bones for dogs...lollipops for children 

They of course can make these promises, save in the knowledge they will never have to implement them..

The BBC were highlighting today an interesting analysis of the Tory and Labour manifestos by the respected IFS.  IFS said both had weaknesses, on the Tories side saying that their immigration target was likely to lead to a loss of several billion, while Labour new tax plans might bring in only £40bn and not the £49bn claimed.

I must say I thought a £9bn shortfall pretty small, given that HMG's tax etc income is over £600n per year.  The BBC were presenting this as something of a draw.  Problem is, the Conservatives have focussed on Labour's weakness in managing the economy and that its manifesto doesn't add up.  So I'm not sure a draw reflects too well on the Conservatives!  

wenger2015 posted:

fatcat posted:

Timmo1341 posted:

When the nation desperately needs an effective opposition, and viable alternative, to the Tories, we get this sad apology for a politician and leader.

You might get your wish, perhaps the Tories will make a good opposition, but I doubt it.

I know it’s hard to believe, but Corbyn’s popularity appears to be growing, I work with a couple 30 year olds who normally vote conservatives, today they both said they will be voting labour.

Why, because they like Corbyn, as a person. (Irrelevant questions from a smart arsse political commentator isn’t going to change that, probably the opposite). One of them asked, why would anybody vote against more money for schools, police and NHS.

 

Labour are promising More money for everything, schools, police, NHS,  bones for dogs...lollipops for children 

They of course can make these promises, save in the knowledge they will never have to implement them..

If the labour government manage to achieve just two of the above, the electorate will probably view this as a success.

As recent events have shown, the NHS and police are wonderful, reducing funding is not a voter winner, just the opposite.

I had a chat with our MP earlier this evening. He was wandering past our road dishing out leaflets, and I was on my bike on the way back from the shops, so I thought I'd see how he responded to my request for his support for compulsory testing for older drivers. He asked a few questions, which were surprisingly pertinent, shook my hand and suggested I write to him if he was re-elected, which of course he will be. He was about as engaging as a toilet brush, rather like his boss. The least engaging MP I've ever spoken to. He did ask if he could count on my vote, and when I told him I was a Labour Party member he made no effort to persuade me otherwise, which I thought was interesting. 

Hungryhalibut posted:

The worrying thing for me is that May thought this was a sensible policy. But it wasn't thought through. The manifesto was not costed. It all smacks of hubris. The desire to get a massive majority is overriding the needs of the nation. Yet if May started eating babies the Mail would still support her. But Corbyn, whose manifesto has some well thought out policies to build a better nation, is castigated. 

Nigel, I thought you were an accountant? Whilst I too would like to see many of Corbyn's manifesto (wish list) policies implemented, I really cannot see where the money will come from. I fear it would end up a repeat of the free spending Blair years, with GB plc filing for bankruptcy after a few enjoyable years. 

It would come from higher taxes. It's very simple. Anyway, I'm not a real accountant, I'm a behavioural ecologist who couldn't get a job watching fish, so I had to count beans. 

Nigel - as a Labour Party member how was he going to persuade you to vote Tory?  Even I would have given up on you!

Spend more = Higher Taxes , I can't say that its a formula that is very appealing.

If I were to add up what I have had to pay in personal tax and Company tax over the past 10 years, it would pay for a Statement or two....

I was reading earlier today that once in his more radical younger days Jeremy suggested an income tax opt-out for those who were peace activists and didn't wish to support the Army - where this left the RAF and Navy I don't know. But had me thinking for those of us who chose to privately educate our children couldn't be granted tax relief on the fees.   The hypocrisy of the Left knows no bounds.  

wenger2015 posted:

Spend more = Higher Taxes , I can't say that its a formula that is very appealing.

If I were to add up what I have had to pay in personal tax and Company tax over the past 10 years, it would pay for a Statement or two....

Minus of course all the public services that you'd have had to pay for privately - I reckon you're still heavily in profit

The Strat (Fender) posted:

I was reading earlier today that once in his more radical younger days Jeremy suggested an income tax opt-out for those who were peace activists and didn't wish to support the Army - where this left the RAF and Navy I don't know. But had me thinking for those of us who chose to privately educate our children couldn't be granted tax relief on the fees.   The hypocrisy of the Left knows no bounds.  

Actually it wasn't his much younger days, he mentioned it in parliament in 1999, and possibly since (the Tory papers can't seem to agree on who it was or when in stories since, but the 1999 one is definitely on public record).  Though it wasn't an opt-out (nice try, Murdoch), it was a re-direction to peaceful projects.  From Hansard: 'The Italian Parliament has draft legislation before it that would allow Italian taxpayers to divert a proportion of their tax from the armed services to peace building, and there are three relevant petitions before this House. Given the huge rebuilding costs that will fall to this country and others in Kosovo and elsewhere where there has been conflict, perhaps we should have a peace-building fund that could invest in conflict resolution, reconstruction and trying to prevent terrible wars and civilian conflicts.'

What a greedy, envious bastard, eh?  What a totally grasping, hypocritical suggestion.  The wealthy have to pay a tax, designed to apply to things people want but don't need, on things they want but don't need.  While the lily-livered pacifists are allowed to, er, pay the same amount of tax as everybody else, like they did in the first place.

I'm not saying I agree with the proposal.  I'm just trying (with what's intended as mildly humorous sarcasm) to point out the difference between the accusation and reality.  In fact the actual proposal is so far away from ever happening that at the moment it's not worth the time to consider either way.  But TBH I can't see that the actual policy suggestion makes much difference, for exactly that reason - it wasn't going to be implemented when he asked the question, and he knew it.  It'd be ridiculous to think that he actually, seriously thought the govt would go for it there and then.  Corbyn might hope for a world where peace spending outpaces war spending, but that doesn't make him stupid.  But to raise the fact that such things were being considered in other European countries, maybe contribute in some way to raising the profile of movements towards what he saw as a better way of doing things, yeah, that makes sense.  For someone with the luxury of being a backbencher.

Today, when everything has to be more real because it's an election and all this is really happening (and, I wildly speculate, now that as leader of the opposition he's party to some scary info - would that position mean he gets briefed on things?)...  It's not in the manifesto, it hasn't been mentioned/proposed at any point since he became leader of the party, and everyone knows it would be defeated in parliament by a landslide.

Nice diatribe Dave.......not that the Guardian or Mirror don't seek to expose a vignette on the other side.  

wenger2015 posted:

Spend more = Higher Taxes , I can't say that its a formula that is very appealing.

If I were to add up what I have had to pay in personal tax and Company tax over the past 10 years, it would pay for a Statement or two....

You should think yourself fortunate to have that level of income. 

It's time we woke up to the fact that services cost money. People want a great NHS and they want lots of police to keep us all safe, yet they still want to pay less. Sure there are some efficiencies still to be made, though most of them have been taken, and sure there are tax avoidance loops still to be closed, but at the end of the day we need to pay more tax. 

As I've said before, people seem to want German or Scandinavian standards of state provision yet pay US levels of tax. That's simply impossible. Under the story policies, our great public services - schools, health, police and so on are under a real threat. May won't face up to the fact that we need to pay more, and her only policy to address the issue so far - the so called dementia tax - has been an unmitigated disaster. Labour have costed what needs to be done and made proposals on how it should be funded. At least that's open and honest. What do we want - failing schools, inadequate health provision, a threadbare police service? Or for those with the broadest shoulders to pay a bit more tax that they can easily afford? It's a simple choice. 

Hungryhalibut posted:

wenger2015 posted:

Spend more = Higher Taxes , I can't say that its a formula that is very appealing.

If I were to add up what I have had to pay in personal tax and Company tax over the past 10 years, it would pay for a Statement or two....

You should think yourself fortunate to have that level of income. 

It's time we woke up to the fact that services cost money. People want a great NHS and they want lots of police to keep us all safe, yet they still want to pay less. Sure there are some efficiencies still to be made, though most of them have been taken, and sure there are tax avoidance loops still to be closed, but at the end of the day we need to pay more tax. 

As I've said before, people seem to want German or Scandinavian standards of state provision yet pay US levels of tax. That's simply impossible. Under the story policies, our great public services - schools, health, police and so on are under a real threat. May won't face up to the fact that we need to pay more, and her only policy to address the issue so far - the so called dementia tax - has been an unmitigated disaster. Labour have costed what needs to be done and made proposals on how it should be funded. At least that's open and honest. What do we want - failing schools, inadequate health provision, a threadbare police service? Or for those with the broadest shoulders to pay a bit more tax that they can easily afford? It's a simple choice. 

My comments ' a Statement or two '.

I was using my newly acquired Diane Abbott calculator,  but safe to say I have paid an eye-watering  amount of tax.

I do not wish to pay a penny more....., the NHS, police, schools, will always need more and more money.

Far better to come up with a policy that deals with those that abuse these fine institutions ....

So what would you do to deal with those that abuse schools? And exactly who abuses schools, and how do they abuse them? How will that deal with the annual real term cuts in school funding that a built into Government spending plans? 

wenger2015 posted:

Spend more = Higher Taxes , I can't say that its a formula that is very appealing.

If I were to add up what I have had to pay in personal tax and Company tax over the past 10 years, it would pay for a Statement or two....

Well, this is what democracy is all about.

Do we to pay for things on an individual basis as and when the need arises, such as dental treatment, hospital treatment, home care, age-related residential care. Or do we want to cover these costs collectively and use them on an "as needed" basis.

Likewise with infrastructure. Power  supplies, water, sewage, even roads, railways, airports and seaports. Do we want these to be private enterprises paid for as and when we use them, or collectively provided, operated and maintained.

Law & Order, foreign relationships, defence. Difficult to do on an individual basis, but we need to decide how much of our national effort is allocated to these and other "esentials" of life.

We each will have our own views as to which method is to our own liking, and which method we consider to be most efficient/effective.

Like jermey, I would prefer to live in a world of peace. And we should devote a lot of effort to that end. But........we have a long way to go. Our territorial imperative has to be overcome and that is an instinct that we have inherited. Not too easy to re-evolve in the reverse direction.

Timmo1341 posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

The worrying thing for me is that May thought this was a sensible policy. But it wasn't thought through. The manifesto was not costed. It all smacks of hubris. The desire to get a massive majority is overriding the needs of the nation. Yet if May started eating babies the Mail would still support her. But Corbyn, whose manifesto has some well thought out policies to build a better nation, is castigated. 

Nigel, I thought you were an accountant? Whilst I too would like to see many of Corbyn's manifesto (wish list) policies implemented, I really cannot see where the money will come from. I fear it would end up a repeat of the free spending Blair years, with GB plc filing for bankruptcy after a few enjoyable years. 

Could you provide evidence of this in terms of what you imply i.e. spending more than fiscally responsible. This is a simplistic canard put out by the Conservatives and Osborne in particular. You may recall that up until 2008 Cameron was  promising to match Labour's spending. What happened in 2008 was a global financial crash, which is what created a huge deficit. The bail-out of the banks was probably essential in the circumstances - again you may recall that we were hours away from being in a position where ATMs of the most vulnerable banks would have shut down. This is not to say that Labour didn't make any mistakes but probably the biggest financial/economic mistake was for Labour to have followed the Tory lead in financial deregulation. 

See for example: http://www.economicshelp.org/b...er-labour-1997-2010/

Here's another summary (source here http://www.primeeconomics.org/...jnvpyfos059pp0w7gnpe):

Public debt

• Taking the period 1974 to 2008, the level of net debt as a share of GDP has fluctuated sharply under both Conservative and Labour governments (with a bigger fall under the 1979-97 Conservative government), but net debt as a percentage of GDP was lower at the end than at the start under each government than at its start, including the 1997 Labour government up till 2008.
• But once the financial crisis hit, the ratio worsened greatly, so that by the end of the Labour government, the debt to GDP ratio was some 25 percentage points higher than at the outset in 1997.  Under the 2010-2015 Coalition government, the debt to GDP ratio rose further by around 18 percentage points.
• Taking the amount of annual debt interest payments as a share of GDP since 1964, these peaked under the 1979-97 Conservative government at 3.5%, and were lowest under the 1997-2010 Labour government at 2.3% of GDP.  With the increase in public debt since 2009, this increased to 2.9% of GDP under the Coalition government

wenger2015 posted:

 

 

I was using my newly acquired Diane Abbott calculator,  

 

I liked that expression, wenger. I think we might all need one of those when justifying our Naim systems