This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
-
LoveCurryPies
- Posts: 4402
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:00 am
- Been Liked: 1621 times
- Has Liked: 697 times
Post
by LoveCurryPies » Thu May 11, 2017 12:11 pm
Corbyn's Labour will renationalise the Railways, the energy industry and the Royal Mail, scrap University tuition fees, put additional billions into the NHS and WITHOUT anyone who earns less than £80,000 paying more tax! All that at a time when we will have also to pay the Brexit EU billions.
Seriously, how on Earth are they going to pay for that?

Did Diane Abbott do the calculations?
-
Juan Tanamera
- Posts: 2533
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
- Been Liked: 891 times
- Has Liked: 11167 times
Post
by Juan Tanamera » Thu May 11, 2017 12:13 pm
And clear the mountainous debts racked up by the tories.
-
Falcon
- Posts: 3367
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:40 pm
- Been Liked: 936 times
- Has Liked: 1270 times
- Location: Proudsville
Post
by Falcon » Thu May 11, 2017 12:14 pm
I expect the actual published manifesto will explain for us.
-
Quickenthetempo
- Posts: 19778
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
- Been Liked: 4199 times
- Has Liked: 2246 times
Post
by Quickenthetempo » Thu May 11, 2017 12:25 pm
No need to get Royal Mail back, that's gone as an important national company. I would be in favour of the Railways being nationalised.
Tuition fees could be paid back to students who pass their exams. Too many drop out after going Uni for **** up.
The NHS needs more money or solutions. Families won't look after their elderly anymore so they bed block, maybe put them up in hotels as a cheaper alternative? A one off fee of £10 at A&E would cut queues no end with people not turning up for stupid things. Could pay for another 10 nurses in the department as well.
-
CnBtruntru
- Posts: 4392
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:39 pm
- Been Liked: 724 times
- Has Liked: 672 times
- Location: Wexford, Ireland. via Nelson.
Post
by CnBtruntru » Thu May 11, 2017 12:28 pm
Go to A&E in Ireland and it's €100 that would put a stop on people going for a damned sticky plaster for a pin prick or a cold.
-
If it be your will
- Posts: 2103
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
- Been Liked: 500 times
- Has Liked: 509 times
Post
by If it be your will » Thu May 11, 2017 12:34 pm
.
These 3 users liked this post: Dejavu Rick_Muller longsidepies
-
dpinsussex
- Posts: 3554
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:15 am
- Been Liked: 1047 times
- Has Liked: 1187 times
- Location: Reading
Post
by dpinsussex » Thu May 11, 2017 12:36 pm
Maybe this is why we need MORE grammar schools
This user liked this post: starting_11
-
Pstotto
- Posts: 6224
- Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2016 12:11 pm
- Been Liked: 1024 times
- Has Liked: 763 times
Post
by Pstotto » Thu May 11, 2017 12:59 pm
Blair's Open Freebie UK of 300,000 extras every year costs the N.H.S., emergency services, social services, prison service, education for their children, need I go on? Repatriate all incomers of the UK since the Millenium, that might pay for their manifesto pledges.
-
Falcon
- Posts: 3367
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:40 pm
- Been Liked: 936 times
- Has Liked: 1270 times
- Location: Proudsville
Post
by Falcon » Thu May 11, 2017 1:01 pm
And there's me believing that migration brings a net benefit to the UK. I must need some alternative facts.

This user liked this post: longsidepies
-
hampsteadclaret
- Posts: 3235
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:25 am
- Been Liked: 1110 times
- Has Liked: 802 times
Post
by hampsteadclaret » Thu May 11, 2017 1:10 pm
Re-nationalise without a penny compensation..that won't cost much will it?
I [and you] got f***all when it was privatised back then, and sold off ON THE CHEAP to a bunch of fat cats, who flogged them for a fast easy buck on the first day of trading...
All the Privatisations were nothing more than a vast transfer of wealth from all of us, to a smaller more affluent group who could afford to buy the shares.
PF!
This user liked this post: bedfords
-
SammyBoy
- Posts: 1466
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:41 pm
- Been Liked: 470 times
- Has Liked: 441 times
- Location: Sector 7G
Post
by SammyBoy » Thu May 11, 2017 1:20 pm
-
Lancasterclaret
- Posts: 23343
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
- Been Liked: 8058 times
- Has Liked: 4714 times
- Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing
Post
by Lancasterclaret » Thu May 11, 2017 1:24 pm
Don't get me wrong ITBYW, I like the policies that Lab have, I just need to have confidence that they can pay for them.
This doesn't help.
-
LoveCurryPies
- Posts: 4402
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:00 am
- Been Liked: 1621 times
- Has Liked: 697 times
Post
by LoveCurryPies » Thu May 11, 2017 1:28 pm
Juan Tanamera wrote:And clear the mountainous debts racked up by the tories.
Is that how you describe how Blair's Labour party left the UK with £3 trillion debt?
-
LoveCurryPies
- Posts: 4402
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:00 am
- Been Liked: 1621 times
- Has Liked: 697 times
Post
by LoveCurryPies » Thu May 11, 2017 1:30 pm
Lancasterclaret wrote:Don't get me wrong ITBYW, I like the policies that Lab have, I just need to have confidence that they can pay for them.
I would do away with tuition fees as well but I don't want to know how Labour would pay for all these schemes, especially without charging more tax for 95% of the people.
-
AndrewJB
- Posts: 3824
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:20 pm
- Been Liked: 1165 times
- Has Liked: 761 times
Post
by AndrewJB » Thu May 11, 2017 1:36 pm
Once the manifesto is out we'll be able to see how they intend to pay for it all. Importantly - to sweep away some of the rubbish that has been thrown around - there's nothing in that manifesto that looks remotely 'hard left'
These 2 users liked this post: longsidepies If it be your will
-
RingoMcCartney
- Posts: 10318
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:45 pm
- Been Liked: 2637 times
- Has Liked: 2798 times
Post
by RingoMcCartney » Thu May 11, 2017 1:37 pm
Juan Tanamera wrote:And clear the mountainous debts racked up by the tories.
Liebour crowed about their "soft touch regulation" of the city of London( the hub of global finance).
And their "prawn cocktail offensive" of banksters.
So, just a quick reminder, it was Liebour who were in government when they crashed the economy. They bailed out the banks and burderened generations yet unborn, with the debt for decades.
Liebour can be trusted to do one thing.
F*** the economy up, good and proper.
-
timshorts
- Posts: 2829
- Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2017 8:52 pm
- Been Liked: 469 times
- Has Liked: 356 times
Post
by timshorts » Thu May 11, 2017 1:38 pm
At least they are talking about putting some tax up. Leaving things as they are will just end up with us bankrupt at the rate the Tories are going and we won't be quite in the position to ask Germany to bail us out like Greece does any more.
Perhaps Corbyn can Nationalise the Daily (hate) Mail while he's at it.
-
AndrewJB
- Posts: 3824
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:20 pm
- Been Liked: 1165 times
- Has Liked: 761 times
Post
by AndrewJB » Thu May 11, 2017 1:39 pm
LoveCurryPies wrote:Is that how you describe how Blair's Labour party left the UK with £3 trillion debt?
UK national debt in 2010 was £1 Trillion. The Tories have doubled that in only seven years.
These 5 users liked this post: Dejavu Juan Tanamera RoystonVasey longsidepies If it be your will
-
dsr
- Posts: 16251
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
- Been Liked: 4868 times
- Has Liked: 2590 times
Post
by dsr » Thu May 11, 2017 1:40 pm
Eliminating the deficit is quite easy under that scenario - they're not going to count capital projects as deficit. It's probably eliminated now under those rules.
-
Bacchus
- Posts: 1055
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:07 pm
- Been Liked: 742 times
- Has Liked: 183 times
-
Contact:
Post
by Bacchus » Thu May 11, 2017 1:58 pm
RingoMcCartney wrote:Liebour crowed about their "soft touch regulation" of the city of London( the hub of global finance).
And their "prawn cocktail offensive" of banksters.
So, just a quick reminder, it was Liebour who were in government when they crashed the economy. They bailed out the banks and burderened generations yet unborn, with the debt for decades.
Liebour can be trusted to do one thing.
F*** the economy up, good and proper.
Liebour - can I add that to Remoaner, Bliar and Druncker in the list of Ringo attempts to be smart but sounds like a 4 year old? It's like conversing with a toddler and that's before we even get on to your fundamental misunderstanding of just about everything.
This user liked this post: longsidepies
-
aggi
- Posts: 9704
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
- Been Liked: 2338 times
Post
by aggi » Thu May 11, 2017 2:06 pm
hampsteadclaret wrote:Re-nationalise without a penny compensation..that won't cost much will it?
I [and you] got f***all when it was privatised back then, and sold off ON THE CHEAP to a bunch of fat cats, who flogged them for a fast easy buck on the first day of trading...
All the Privatisations were nothing more than a vast transfer of wealth from all of us, to a smaller more affluent group who could afford to buy the shares.
PF!
The intention with the railways at least is to take them back under national control when the franchises expire so that cost should be minimal.
-
AndrewJB
- Posts: 3824
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:20 pm
- Been Liked: 1165 times
- Has Liked: 761 times
Post
by AndrewJB » Thu May 11, 2017 2:06 pm
dsr wrote:Eliminating the deficit is quite easy under that scenario - they're not going to count capital projects as deficit. It's probably eliminated now under those rules.
Mortgage debt is markedly different to using a credit card to pay every day bills.
-
Spijed
- Posts: 18034
- Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:33 pm
- Been Liked: 3047 times
- Has Liked: 1326 times
Post
by Spijed » Thu May 11, 2017 2:09 pm
RingoMcCartney wrote:Liebour crowed about their "soft touch regulation" of the city of London( the hub of global finance).
And their "prawn cocktail offensive" of banksters.
So, just a quick reminder, it was Liebour who were in government when they crashed the economy. They bailed out the banks and burderened generations yet unborn, with the debt for decades.
Liebour can be trusted to do one thing.
F*** the economy up, good and proper.
So how come debt has grown under the Conservatives?
-
Burnley Ace
- Posts: 3948
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:03 pm
- Been Liked: 728 times
- Has Liked: 3226 times
Post
by Burnley Ace » Thu May 11, 2017 2:33 pm
aggi wrote:The intention with the railways at least is to take them back under national control when the franchises expire so that cost should be minimal.
A question I have seen asked - How many of these franchises expire in the next 5 years
-
Burnley Ace
- Posts: 3948
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:03 pm
- Been Liked: 728 times
- Has Liked: 3226 times
Post
by Burnley Ace » Thu May 11, 2017 2:34 pm
How much money would the NHS need, per year, to be"fully funded"?
-
claretdom
- Posts: 3741
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:53 am
- Been Liked: 1694 times
- Has Liked: 193 times
- Location: Got a ticket from a mashed up bloke in Camden Town
Post
by claretdom » Thu May 11, 2017 2:43 pm
Burnley Ace wrote:How much money would the NHS need, per year, to be"fully funded"?
Diane Abbott said it was either £ 12.75 per week or £300 million per day
These 2 users liked this post: dsr Burnley_Gal
-
RingoMcCartney
- Posts: 10318
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:45 pm
- Been Liked: 2637 times
- Has Liked: 2798 times
Post
by RingoMcCartney » Thu May 11, 2017 3:25 pm
Spijed wrote:So how come debt has grown under the Conservatives?
Not saying it hasn't mate.
Just trying to stop any Liebour responsibility denial.

-
Sidney1st
- Posts: 15478
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:40 pm
- Been Liked: 3548 times
- Has Liked: 5594 times
- Location: Oxfordshire
Post
by Sidney1st » Thu May 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Burnley Ace wrote:How much money would the NHS need, per year, to be"fully funded"?
I don't think anyone actually knows, because it's run over budget for so bloody long.......
It would probably be better run if they had better Top level senior staff, but that won't happen any time soon.
-
Imploding Turtle
- Posts: 19799
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
- Been Liked: 5483 times
- Has Liked: 2540 times
- Location: Burnley, Lancs
Post
by Imploding Turtle » Thu May 11, 2017 3:58 pm
Spijed wrote:So how come debt has grown under the Conservatives?
The idea that the Tories could have cut the deficit so much so that debt wouldn't increase is about as stupid an idea that the global economy crashed because of Labour.
-
claretdom
- Posts: 3741
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:53 am
- Been Liked: 1694 times
- Has Liked: 193 times
- Location: Got a ticket from a mashed up bloke in Camden Town
Post
by claretdom » Thu May 11, 2017 4:00 pm
Imploding Turtle wrote:The idea that the Tories could have cut the deficit so much so that debt wouldn't increase is about as stupid an idea that the global economy crashed because of Labour.
You tory you
-
BleedingClaret
- Posts: 4020
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:06 am
- Been Liked: 1187 times
- Has Liked: 1925 times
- Location: Burnley Boy exiled in Nelson
Post
by BleedingClaret » Thu May 11, 2017 4:14 pm
Then there were 9 little cameramen standing in the way
-
Burnley Ace
- Posts: 3948
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:03 pm
- Been Liked: 728 times
- Has Liked: 3226 times
Post
by Burnley Ace » Thu May 11, 2017 4:19 pm
Not easy to read on a phone but it looks, unless there are automatic extension clauses, that there are a few.
-
Paul Waine
- Posts: 10212
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2418 times
- Has Liked: 3332 times
Post
by Paul Waine » Thu May 11, 2017 4:39 pm
If it be your will wrote:Falcon is right. Let's wait and see. At the moment the suggestion is Labour are 10 billion short of what is needed to transform the country from top to bottom. The press is all over the places with phrases like 'Labour's Budget Black Hole!"
Considering the richest 1000 people have just increased their wealth by 92 billion in a single year, the task of finding that 10 billion doesn't appear insurmountable to me. And the benefits would be absolutely enormous for everyone else.
Hi iibyw, you know that we've established before that (1) most of that £92 billion is the result of re-valuing overseas assets back to GBP; (2) the largest billionaires are not UK born/UK citizens - even if they are on the S Times "richest 1000" list - and their wealth is not taxable by UK gov't.
Wait a minute though, if these 1,000 people are so clever generating wealth, maybe we should get them to form the next government?
What's that you say? Donald who?
This user liked this post: dsr
-
Paul Waine
- Posts: 10212
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2418 times
- Has Liked: 3332 times
Post
by Paul Waine » Thu May 11, 2017 4:45 pm
CnBtruntru wrote:Go to A&E in Ireland and it's €100 that would put a stop on people going for a damned sticky plaster for a pin prick or a cold.
Hi CnBtruntru, I've got to admit, I know nothing about Ireland's health service. Is it taxpayer funded or are people covered by insurance (as in most/all European countries)?
Is health care a "big political football" in Ireland like the NHS is in UK?
-
Paul Waine
- Posts: 10212
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2418 times
- Has Liked: 3332 times
Post
by Paul Waine » Thu May 11, 2017 4:49 pm
Imploding Turtle wrote:The idea that the Tories could have cut the deficit so much so that debt wouldn't increase is about as stupid an idea that the global economy crashed because of Labour.
Hi IT, we all know that Gordon Brown didn't crash the global economy - though his spending policies plus switching banking regulation from the Bank of England to the FSA were both big contributors to the UK's "long drawn out" recovery from the UK's part of the financial crisis.
-
Paul Waine
- Posts: 10212
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2418 times
- Has Liked: 3332 times
Post
by Paul Waine » Thu May 11, 2017 4:57 pm
Spijed wrote:So how come debt has grown under the Conservatives?
Hi Spijed, when you are running a deficit, whether it's because you have chosen to spend more than you expect to receive, or your tax receipts fall below the money you've always planned to spend then the debt at the end of the year will be higher than the debt at the beginning of the year.
The "austerity" that the Coalition Gov't ran and the "austerity" that 2 years of Conservative Gov't have run have been pretty mild. Not a political point; adjusting to the debt and deficit levels post-2008 has been like turning round the proverbial oil tanker, slowly, slowly, is the only way.
For a much tougher austerity programme take a look at Greece.
-
Pstotto
- Posts: 6224
- Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2016 12:11 pm
- Been Liked: 1024 times
- Has Liked: 763 times
Post
by Pstotto » Thu May 11, 2017 5:38 pm
... Not yet, Sammy, it's a bit early

.
-
summitclaret
- Posts: 4556
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:39 pm
- Been Liked: 1020 times
- Has Liked: 1607 times
- Location: burnley
Post
by summitclaret » Thu May 11, 2017 5:45 pm
"UK national debt in 2010 was £1 Trillion. The Tories have doubled that in only seven years."
No - interest from pre 2010 commitments and continuing spending more than we bring in has, despite the 'cuts'.
Labour and the rest of the left can't have it both ways. You can criticise for reducing annual expenditure and thereby some services, but surely not blame the current/Coalition Governnment for increasing debt. Which is it?
The 2015 GE was won mainly because the Tories said that they would try to balance the annual books. (Not a bad ethos - but there is a debate n how quickly) and Labour were not trusted on this. However, the new PM appears to realise that this can't be done as quickly (if at all) without really damaging ordinary people's quality of life unacceptably.(We will see when her manifesto comes out).
The leaked draft Labour manifesto appears to take them way further down the spend for today and sod the future route then Milliband's did. Again, let's wait for the final/fully costed version, but I can't see how it is going to make sense. It seems like it is going to be more class warfare than a serious attempt to win power by going for middle England. The left will probably force the demise of the once proud Labour party after this GE. Khan and Burnham have made smart moves imo, as has Jarvis in holding back.
-
Spijed
- Posts: 18034
- Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:33 pm
- Been Liked: 3047 times
- Has Liked: 1326 times
Post
by Spijed » Thu May 11, 2017 5:56 pm
summitclaret wrote:The 2015 GE was won mainly because the Tories said that they would try to balance the annual books.
Err, no. It was won because they targeted the Lib-Dem seats in South West England. They didn't eat into Labour's vote share.
-
summitclaret
- Posts: 4556
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:39 pm
- Been Liked: 1020 times
- Has Liked: 1607 times
- Location: burnley
Post
by summitclaret » Thu May 11, 2017 6:03 pm
No - as the main opposition Labour, and after banging on about cuts etc., should have been able to increase it's vote share significantly.
-
summitclaret
- Posts: 4556
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:39 pm
- Been Liked: 1020 times
- Has Liked: 1607 times
- Location: burnley
Post
by summitclaret » Thu May 11, 2017 7:35 pm
The number to watch is 28 %. This is what Micheal Foot got in 1983. If JC does not get 28% then - answers on a postcard.
-
lovebeingaclaret
- Posts: 394
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:42 am
- Been Liked: 120 times
- Has Liked: 358 times
Post
by lovebeingaclaret » Thu May 11, 2017 8:47 pm
The one good thing about corbyn winning the election would be that my kids would find out for themselves how bad it was in the seventies cos they won't believe me when I tell them how bad it was.
-
Lancasterclaret
- Posts: 23343
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
- Been Liked: 8058 times
- Has Liked: 4714 times
- Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing
Post
by Lancasterclaret » Thu May 11, 2017 8:49 pm
It wouldn't matter if JC got 20%. The vast majority of members want him, and no one else.
He's have to **** on a Palestinian flag or something to actually get de-selected
-
Steve-Harpers-perm
- Posts: 6519
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:52 am
- Been Liked: 2114 times
- Has Liked: 986 times
Post
by Steve-Harpers-perm » Thu May 11, 2017 8:50 pm
Love the notion we will all suddenly be teleported back to the 1970's!!
-
CnBtruntru
- Posts: 4392
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:39 pm
- Been Liked: 724 times
- Has Liked: 672 times
- Location: Wexford, Ireland. via Nelson.
Post
by CnBtruntru » Thu May 11, 2017 10:37 pm
Paul Waine wrote:Hi CnBtruntru, I've got to admit, I know nothing about Ireland's health service. Is it taxpayer funded or are people covered by insurance (as in most/all European countries)?
Is health care a "big political football" in Ireland like the NHS is in UK?
If you have private health care it is usually easier to get into see a specialist within a month or so, if public 18 months to 2 years generally, hopefully you are not to sick, it is same as any where else all the political parties use it as a scapegoat for their own inefficiencies. If you go to see your Dr it is generally €50 - €60 to see them then you also have to pay for prescriptions up to €144 a month.
-
CnBtruntru
- Posts: 4392
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:39 pm
- Been Liked: 724 times
- Has Liked: 672 times
- Location: Wexford, Ireland. via Nelson.
Post
by CnBtruntru » Thu May 11, 2017 10:44 pm
Surely if Corbyn can afford to pay for a chauffeur to run over the press he can at the least afford a decent calculator for Ms Abbott but then they need someone to show her how to use it
