Labour ?

Posted by: wenger2015 on 12 February 2017

I am of no political persuasion, i am very distrusting of politicians in general and promises they make and break.

But in my humble opinion, the country needs an effective opposition party?

But in my memory, i can not recall a time when the Labour party has been in such a decline.

Does Mr Corbyn actually know what he is doing and what is best for his party?

Does he still have the support of long term labour members?

Will the labour party ever again become an effective opposition, let alone lead the country again?

With some crucial by elections coming up, it will be interesting to see what happens?

Any thoughts?

Posted on: 29 May 2017 by dayjay

Really poor election campaigns from all sides which sums up our choices I guess. Really does come down to who can throw it away the most or who can convince the most people that their daft promises are for real. We are all doomed

Posted on: 29 May 2017 by Hmack

fatcat posted:
None of the current interviewers come close to Brian Walden.
And what a theme tune.

I have to agree.

Posted on: 29 May 2017 by fatcat

dayjay posted:
Really poor election campaigns from all sides which sums up our choices I guess. Really does come down to who can throw it away the most or who can convince the most people that their daft promises are for real. We are all doomed

David

I think you’re over estimating the importance of the government.

The UK isn’t successful because its government.

The UK is successful DISPITE its government.

Posted on: 30 May 2017 by Mike-B

Oh dear, another manifesto numbers car crash

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40090520

Posted on: 30 May 2017 by Ardbeg10y

Mike-B posted:
Oh dear, another manifesto numbers car crash
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40090520

Despite being non UK, I follow your (?) elections with great interest. Having watched some public appearences / interviews I think that if Corbyn would have the cost figures a bit better in mind, he would turn in a much better alternative to May. Besides idealists, hardly anybody trusts him now since he is not able to do so.

Personally, I would be able to vote someone having a nice dream, and telling me in all fairness what it costs.

He's now diverting in socialist propaganda way too often. Can't digest that.

Posted on: 30 May 2017 by John Bailey

Mike-B posted:
Oh dear, another manifesto numbers car crash
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40090520

Perhaps it would be better to take a tip from Theresa and not put any costings in the manifesto in the first place?

Posted on: 30 May 2017 by fatcat

Mike-B posted:
Oh dear, another manifesto numbers car crash
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40090520

Ah, yes, a manifesto car crash.

I remember the first one 10,000 MORE POLICE OFFICERS at a cost of 300k, no that’s not right 10,000 MORE POLICE OFFICERS at a cost of 8 million, no that’s not right either 10,000 MORE POLICE OFFICERS at cost of 8 billion, or was it 800 million. For 10,000 MORE POLICE OFFICERS?????

10,000 MORE POLICE OFFICERS. 10,000 MORE POLICE OFFICERS

And today’s car crash.

Just seen reports of it on the BBC news. Labours promising FREE CHILDCARE FOR 2 YEAR OLDS, don’t know how much FREE CHILDCARE FOR 2 YEAR OLDS will cost, just know labour are promising FREE CHILDCARE FOR 2 YEAR OLDS.

FREE CHILDCARE FOR 2 YEAR OLDS. FREE CHILDCARE FOR 2 YEAR OLDS.

Genius.

Posted on: 30 May 2017 by wenger2015

NEWS FLASH...

Free Diane Abbott calculators are being distributed for all MP's being interviewed about their manifesto pledges.

Batteries will not be required ...

Posted on: 30 May 2017 by Vauxhall mkII

John Bailey posted:
Mike-B posted:
Oh dear, another manifesto numbers car crash
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40090520
Perhaps it would be better to take a tip from Theresa and not put any costings in the manifesto in the first place?

and then say all costs will be subject to a consultation process following the actual election rolleyes

Posted on: 30 May 2017 by Vauxhall mkII

Vauxhall mkII posted:
John Bailey posted:
Mike-B posted:
Oh dear, another manifesto numbers car crash
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40090520
Perhaps it would be better to take a tip from Theresa and not put any costings in the manifesto in the first place?
and then say all costs will be subject to a consultation process following the actual election

and then having set a target, repeatedly fail to meet your own target, while continuing to blame the previous administration for a minimum of 7 years

Posted on: 30 May 2017 by Vauxhall mkII

Vauxhall mkII posted:
Vauxhall mkII posted:
John Bailey posted:
Mike-B posted:
Oh dear, another manifesto numbers car crash
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40090520
Perhaps it would be better to take a tip from Theresa and not put any costings in the manifesto in the first place?
and then say all costs will be subject to a consultation process following the actual election
and then having set a target, repeatedly fail to meet your own target, while continuing to blame the previous administration for a minimum of 7 years

Now there's a Strong and Stable proposal to place all your Trust in crazy

Posted on: 30 May 2017 by Dave***t

In fairness, the figure slipped his mind on the spot. The proposal itself has been costed, and the info was provided when the presenter quoted the relevant shadow minister shortly afterwards.

He should have known the numbers, of course. It's embarrassing for him not to be able to produce it immediately under the circumstances. But the meal that's being made of it is more about sneering than anything else.

Hardly an edifying spectacle from any side. It'd work as satire, but as news or helping the electorate to understand the policies on offer, not so much.

Posted on: 30 May 2017 by MDS

Vauxhall mkII posted:
John Bailey posted:
Mike-B posted:
Oh dear, another manifesto numbers car crash
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40090520
Perhaps it would be better to take a tip from Theresa and not put any costings in the manifesto in the first place?
and then say all costs will be subject to a consultation process following the actual election

I think Paxman missed an opportunity on that issue. While TM stuck to her line that the cap will be subject to consultation, earlier in the evening she that the Conservatives' care cost policy would be sustainable. In other words, they know the forecast costs, they also announced the new floor. So in order to work out what an affordable (to the State)/sustainable policy looks like they must have calculated a cap. In which case Paxman could have asked why TM was so reluctant to offer a proposed figure. Alternatively, they haven't worked it out, which blows what TM said about sustainability and adds weight to the accusation that the idea of a cap was rushed out at the last minute when confronted by headlines about a 'dementia tax'.

Posted on: 30 May 2017 by Mike-B

Dave***t posted:

Hardly an edifying spectacle from any side. It'd work as satire, but as news or helping the electorate to understand the policies on offer, not so much.

One problem I have with Corbyn (among the many) is he can't say 'yes' or 'no' when asked to answer as such, he just rambles on all around the subject, he did it so many time last evening I lost count, the Nuke question, the IRA, the drone strike. All it needed this morning was 'I don't have the numbers to hand..... '.

Mind you TM does a pretty nifty job of not answering straight to direct questions.

.............. Looking forward to Friday

Posted on: 30 May 2017 by dayjay

It was a major policy and one that they are focussing on today so he should have had the figures to hand, especially given recent Abbott issues around cost of policies. The fact that the interviewer is getting abused on line by Corbyn supporters for asking the question and following up on him not having the data is an absolute disgrace and something I would associate more with Trump than with the Labour party.

Posted on: 30 May 2017 by Dave***t

dayjay posted:
The fact that the interviewer is getting abused on line by Corbyn supporters for asking the question and following up on him not having the data is an absolute disgrace and something I would associate more with Trump than with the Labour party.

Yeah, abuse is not on. I had a look at twitter, and in response to her tweet about getting abuse, all I could see was people arguing about bias, policy costings, memory tests etc. (i.e. partisan, but largely not abuse). But then I'm not a twitterer. What did they say?

Posted on: 30 May 2017 by Cdb

fatcat posted:
Mike-B posted:
Oh dear, another manifesto numbers car crash
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40090520
Ah, yes, a manifesto car crash.
I remember the first one 10,000 MORE POLICE OFFICERS at a cost of 300k, no that’s not right 10,000 MORE POLICE OFFICERS at a cost of 8 million, no that’s not right either 10,000 MORE POLICE OFFICERS at cost of 8 billion, or was it 800 million. For 10,000 MORE POLICE OFFICERS?????
10,000 MORE POLICE OFFICERS. 10,000 MORE POLICE OFFICERS
10,000 MORE POLICE OFFICERS. 10,000 MORE POLICE OFFICERS
10,000 MORE POLICE OFFICERS. 10,000 MORE POLICE OFFICERS
10,000 MORE POLICE OFFICERS. 10,000 MORE POLICE OFFICERS
10,000 MORE POLICE OFFICERS. 10,000 MORE POLICE OFFICERS
10,000 MORE POLICE OFFICERS. 10,000 MORE POLICE OFFICERS

And today’s car crash.
Just seen reports of it on the BBC news. Labours promising FREE CHILDCARE FOR 2 YEAR OLDS, don’t know how much FREE CHILDCARE FOR 2 YEAR OLDS will cost, just know labour are promising FREE CHILDCARE FOR 2 YEAR OLDS.
FREE CHILDCARE FOR 2 YEAR OLDS. FREE CHILDCARE FOR 2 YEAR OLDS.
FREE CHILDCARE FOR 2 YEAR OLDS. FREE CHILDCARE FOR 2 YEAR OLDS.
FREE CHILDCARE FOR 2 YEAR OLDS. FREE CHILDCARE FOR 2 YEAR OLDS.
FREE CHILDCARE FOR 2 YEAR OLDS. FREE CHILDCARE FOR 2 YEAR OLDS.
Genius.

Well that's not the case is it? It's an interview wreck not a manifesto crash. There are figures available both for the cost of the police officers and for the free childcare (whether or not you accept Labour's tax and spend figures). What happened was that Diane Abbott last week and today Jeremy Corbyn couldn't remember those figures when being interviewed. Highly embarrassing of course, but whether a significant indication of intelligence or competence is another matter. I think that Labour have got so many policies and so many different costings that it's hard for the politicians to keep them at their fingertips.

Anyhow, I listened to the 1 o'clock R4 news report which included a lengthy extract from Woman's Hour and they did seem to be making a meal out of it. The BBC take seemed to be that it indicated that the costing hadn't been done, which wasn't the case. What they seemed to want to do was to make it equivalent to the Tory manifesto u-turn on social care and it hardly seems to be that order of wreck!
Clive

Posted on: 30 May 2017 by dayjay

If you are launching a policy in a radio interview it stands to reason that they will ask you about the cost and that you prep for it. If need be keep your iPad open, write it on your hand, tattoo it onto the inside of your wrist, do whatever it takes, as a professional to have the answer to the question that the opposition are trying to make you look flaky on. That interview was as bad as the Abbot one. If I presented a major policy to my bosses and didn't have basic data like the cost of the policy I wouldn't survive for very long.

Posted on: 30 May 2017 by dayjay

Dave***t posted:
dayjay posted:
The fact that the interviewer is getting abused on line by Corbyn supporters for asking the question and following up on him not having the data is an absolute disgrace and something I would associate more with Trump than with the Labour party.
Yeah, abuse is not on. I had a look at twitter, and in response to her tweet about getting abuse, all I could see was people arguing about bias, policy costings, memory tests etc. (i.e. partisan, but largely not abuse). But then I'm not a twitterer. What did they say?

It wasn't something I especially wanted to see. I saw her refered to as a Tory arse licker and there are reports of anti-Semitic abuse but I haven't gone out of my way to see it

Posted on: 30 May 2017 by Cdb

dayjay posted:
If you are launching a policy in a radio interview it stands to reason that they will ask you about the cost and that you prep for it. If need be keep your iPad open, write it on your hand, tattoo it onto the inside of your wrist, do whatever it takes, as a professional to have the answer to the question that the opposition are trying to make you look flaky on. That interview was as bad as the Abbot one. If I presented a major policy to my bosses and didn't have basic data like the cost of the policy I wouldn't survive for very long.

I presume you are replying to my post, but I don't think you have read my post in relation to the one I was responding to. I didn't deny the interview was a wreck, but that doesn't necessarily mean there was a fundamental policy/costing flaw. Anyhow I wonder if your presentations to your bosses have involved anything like the stresses involved in a GE campaign for the party leaders.

Clive

Posted on: 30 May 2017 by Don Atkinson

Do any of us actually believe a manifesto these days ?

The job of the interviewer, IMHO, is to get the politician to clearly set out the specific manifesto item so that the electorate can form an opinion as to whether they like it or not (whatever “like” means)

The interviewer then needs to challenge the politician to find out how genuine that manifesto item really is. Asking “difficult” questions, including costs and how the necessary funding will be made available is all part of the interviewer’s job.

If the manifesto item is genuine and well thought through, which it should be ! the politician should have no difficulty supplying the answers.

If the politician can’t supply the answers to “difficult” questions, I usually presume that the item under discussion is phoney ! and likewise the politician.

There seems to be a plethora of phoney manifesto items and politicians at the moment.

Posted on: 30 May 2017 by Timmo1341

What a shame both our electoral and judicial systems are adversarial. Instead of concentrating on developing policies that may dig our nation out of the shit storm it's headed for, all our politicians, political commentators and 99% of Naim forum contributors can do is sneer and belittle all those with whom they don't agree. I've witnessed little or no constructive debate either here or in the press - what a sad, sad state of affairs. At least Jeremy Corbyn's aims appear to be, for the most part, decent and honorable. So he falters occasionally under pressure - who on here has never done likewise. I just wish they'd all carry the info with them and refer to it when questioned.

I suppose it's too late to hope for a mature and responsible set of hustings!!

Posted on: 30 May 2017 by dayjay

Cdb posted:
dayjay posted:
If you are launching a policy in a radio interview it stands to reason that they will ask you about the cost and that you prep for it. If need be keep your iPad open, write it on your hand, tattoo it onto the inside of your wrist, do whatever it takes, as a professional to have the answer to the question that the opposition are trying to make you look flaky on. That interview was as bad as the Abbot one. If I presented a major policy to my bosses and didn't have basic data like the cost of the policy I wouldn't survive for very long.
I presume you are replying to my post, but I don't think you have read my post in relation to the one I was responding to. I didn't deny the interview was a wreck, but that doesn't necessarily mean there was a fundamental policy/costing flaw. Anyhow I wonder if your presentations to your bosses have involved anything like the stresses involved in a GE campaign for the party leaders.
Clive

He aspires to be Prime Minister and the pressure of being interviewed and the stress associated with it goes with the territory. If there was a person specification for the job it would have 'deals well with stress and pressure' right at the top of it, after all he may one day have to make a decision on using nuclear weapons which I would imagine is a tad more stressful. Any competent would be Prime Minister would prepped in advance and would have the data to hand. And yes, it doesn't detract from the policy or the costing just his competence

Posted on: 30 May 2017 by Eloise

dayjay posted:
He aspires to be Prime Minister and the pressure of being interviewed and the stress associated with it goes with the territory. If there was a person specification for the job it would have 'deals well with stress and pressure' right at the top of it, after all he may one day have to make a decision on using nuclear weapons which I would imagine is a tad more stressful. Any competent would be Prime Minister would prepped in advance and would have the data to hand. And yes, it doesn't detract from the policy or the costing just his competence

He did have the data "to hand" though ... just not in his mind. It was in a document on his iPad.

If it ever gets to the point of a decision on nuclear weapons ... I hope he (or May) would make the decision in a calm considered moment rather than a instant "snap" decision.

Posted on: 30 May 2017 by Bruce Woodhouse

I have never been so miserable about an election.

I have no trust in the Tories. I absolutely detest their 'blindness' to the effects of austerity and Brexit on the NHS. Jeremy Hunt is atrocious, he trots out utter nonsense and I have no idea whether he actually believes it. They have fought an essentially lazy and arrogant campaign in my view with almost no fresh ideas. Sad.

I have significant affinity for parts of the Labour manifesto (although not re-nationalisation of everything) but I don't believe the numbers and far more seriously I don't believe in their competence if made the ruling party. Lets face it, Corbyn can hardly bring together a shadow cabinet. I would pay more tax under them (and the LDs) and would be happy to do so but I honestly don't know that corporations and the City should be stung with Brexit around the corner. I have no idea what their Brexit plan is either. Do they?

As a along term LD supporter I see no great joy in their manifesto either. Some things I support but 'nice but Tim' is deeply uninspiring and legalising cannabis is a bit of nonsense far as I'm concerned. I cannot honestly see them having any real opposition role in the next Parliament. So were an LD vote felt useful before it feels pointless now

So for the first time in my adult life I may not vote. Sure the sitting MP (a relatively inoffensive individual on personal acquaintance) will get in anyway but it always felt important for me to vote before. It does not this time. Might even join my wife in voting Green just because it would make her pleased!

The only positive I can see is the evaporation of UKIP.

Bruce