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?

And clear the mountainous debts racked up by the tories.

I expect the actual published manifesto will explain for us.

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.

Robert Peston summed it up on twitter, with the actual part of the manifesto that attempts to explain it.

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/862582996699938817" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Looks shaky at best.

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.

.

Maybe this is why we need MORE grammar schools

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.

And there's me believing that migration brings a net benefit to the UK. I must need some alternative facts.

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!

.

Pstotto wrote: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.

Been on the ale?

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.

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?

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.

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'

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

How much money would the NHS need, per year, to be"fully funded"?

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

Burnley Ace wrote:A question I have seen asked - How many of these franchises expire in the next 5 years

11

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _operators" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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.

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.

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.

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

Then there were 9 little cameramen standing in the way

aggi wrote:11

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _operators" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not easy to read on a phone but it looks, unless there are automatic extension clauses, that there are a few.

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?

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?

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.

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.

.

... Not yet, Sammy, it's a bit early .

"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.

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.

No - as the main opposition Labour, and after banging on about cuts etc., should have been able to increase it's vote share significantly.

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.

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.

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

Love the notion we will all suddenly be teleported back to the 1970's!!

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.

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