Discussion:
Labour Manifesto
Add Reply
Yellow
2017-05-16 21:21:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I notice that the Labour Party have not explained how they will pay for
nationalising the post office, rail, water, energy and the national
grid.

I guess they would just borrow the cash?

I thought the argument for borrowing for infrastructure spending went
that it produces jobs but I don't see how that argument works for
nationalisation as all the jobs are already filled.

The Labour bod on today's Daily Politics said McDonnell would reveal how
it is all going to be paid for over the next few days. I wait with
interest (as will the lenders).
steve robinson
2017-05-16 23:12:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
I notice that the Labour Party have not explained how they will pay for
nationalising the post office, rail, water, energy and the national
grid.
I guess they would just borrow the cash?
I thought the argument for borrowing for infrastructure spending went
that it produces jobs but I don't see how that argument works for
nationalisation as all the jobs are already filled.
The Labour bod on today's Daily Politics said McDonnell would reveal how
it is all going to be paid for over the next few days. I wait with
interest (as will the lenders).
Raising corporation tax mans a fool its just going to drive business
out of the UK and cut investment which will lead to higher
unemployment
The Todal
2017-05-16 23:35:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
I notice that the Labour Party have not explained how they will pay for
nationalising the post office, rail, water, energy and the national
grid.
I guess they would just borrow the cash?
I thought the argument for borrowing for infrastructure spending went
that it produces jobs but I don't see how that argument works for
nationalisation as all the jobs are already filled.
The Labour bod on today's Daily Politics said McDonnell would reveal how
it is all going to be paid for over the next few days. I wait with
interest (as will the lenders).
You've read it all, have you? Every page?
http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/Images/manifesto-2017/Labour%20Manifesto%202017.pdf


Our manifesto is fully costed, with all current spending paid for out of
taxation or redirected revenue streams. Our public services must rest on
the foundation of sound finances. Labour will therefore set the target
of eliminating the government’s deficit on day-to-day spending within
five years.But government must have a laser-like focus on how we earn,
as well as how we spend. At the same time as eliminating the current
deficit, Labour will invest in our future, to ensure faster growth and
help us to earn our way as a country again.
Yellow
2017-05-17 01:42:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@icloud.com
says...
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
I notice that the Labour Party have not explained how they will pay for
nationalising the post office, rail, water, energy and the national
grid.
I guess they would just borrow the cash?
I thought the argument for borrowing for infrastructure spending went
that it produces jobs but I don't see how that argument works for
nationalisation as all the jobs are already filled.
The Labour bod on today's Daily Politics said McDonnell would reveal how
it is all going to be paid for over the next few days. I wait with
interest (as will the lenders).
You've read it all, have you? Every page?
I skipped some of the waffle.

This has already been announced but it puzzles the fuck out of me -

We will drop the Conservatives?
Great Repeal Bill, replacing it
with an EU Rights and Protections
Bill that will ensure there is no
detrimental change to workers?
rights, equality law, consumer
rights or environmental protections
as a result of Brexit.

So no transferring EU legislation into UK law - how is that going to
work? They really are a bunch of clowns.
Post by The Todal
http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/Images/manifesto-2017/Labour%20Manifesto%202017.pdf
Already got it thanks. :-p
Post by The Todal
Our manifesto is fully costed,
And the cost is huge - but we all knew that was going to be the case
because jam has to be paid for.

The electorate will shortly have the opportunity to accept or reject and
it is good that they have a very clear choice. It will be interesting.

But it is *not* fully costed, as the payment method for nationalisations
has been omitted.
Post by The Todal
with all current spending paid for out of
taxation or redirected revenue streams. Our public services must rest on
the foundation of sound finances. Labour will therefore set the target
of eliminating the government?s deficit on day-to-day spending within
five years.But government must have a laser-like focus on how we earn,
as well as how we spend. At the same time as eliminating the current
deficit, Labour will invest in our future, to ensure faster growth and
help us to earn our way as a country again.
Vidcapper
2017-05-17 07:07:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by The Todal
Our manifesto is fully costed,
And the cost is huge - but we all knew that was going to be the case
because jam has to be paid for.
The electorate will shortly have the opportunity to accept or reject and
it is good that they have a very clear choice. It will be interesting.
But it is *not* fully costed, as the payment method for nationalisations
has been omitted.
Nor does it take into account the flight of people & businesses escaping
the increased tax burden...
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
The Todal
2017-05-17 08:23:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
I notice that the Labour Party have not explained how they will pay for
nationalising the post office, rail, water, energy and the national
grid.
I guess they would just borrow the cash?
I thought the argument for borrowing for infrastructure spending went
that it produces jobs but I don't see how that argument works for
nationalisation as all the jobs are already filled.
The Labour bod on today's Daily Politics said McDonnell would reveal how
it is all going to be paid for over the next few days. I wait with
interest (as will the lenders).
You've read it all, have you? Every page?
I skipped some of the waffle.
This has already been announced but it puzzles the fuck out of me -
We will drop the Conservatives?
Great Repeal Bill, replacing it
with an EU Rights and Protections
Bill that will ensure there is no
detrimental change to workers?
rights, equality law, consumer
rights or environmental protections
as a result of Brexit.
So no transferring EU legislation into UK law - how is that going to
work? They really are a bunch of clowns.
No, their proposed legislation would indeed have to transfer EU
legislation into UK law (ie, those parts that we want to keep) but
instead of a Great Repeal Bill that is little more than a series of
algorithms, importing EU data without subjecting it to close
parliamentary scrutiny, it will be a considered attempt to focus on the
rights that we want to protect.

They aren't a bunch of clowns.

It's an excellent manifesto, so the Tories can't pretend that it is
another Michael Foot longest suicide note in history. All they can say,
with the assistance of a tame Tory economist or two, is that the
policies are unaffordable. We can't afford a proper NHS or a properly
funded education system, the Tories tell us.

Here's the reality of the school funding crisis:

http://www.schoolcuts.org.uk/#!/
Handsome Jack
2017-05-17 08:38:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
http://www.schoolcuts.org.uk/#!/
"We want every candidate to pledge not to cut education funding", say
four trades unions whose members' future salary increments depend on
increases to education funding. No suspicion of special pleading there
then.
--
Jack
The Todal
2017-05-17 13:27:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Handsome Jack
Post by The Todal
http://www.schoolcuts.org.uk/#!/
"We want every candidate to pledge not to cut education funding", say
four trades unions whose members' future salary increments depend on
increases to education funding. No suspicion of special pleading there
then.
Yes, that's right. Teachers are only in it for the money. Fortunately
our wise and generous Tory government looks after the interests of our
children, the next generation, and makes sure that they receive the
education that they need.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/education/tory-changes-to-school-funding-threaten-18000-london-teaching-jobs-by-2020-a3539226.html

Tory changes to school funding threaten 18,000 London teaching jobs by 2020

Changes to the Government’s school funding formula could result in the
equivalent of 17,645 teaching posts being lost across London over the
next three years, a new analysis showed today.

The most deprived parts of the capital could be hit hardest with Newham
losing the equivalent of 1,074 posts, Tower Hamlets 891 and Southwark
808 by 2020.

The boroughs least affected by the proposals included more affluent
areas such as Richmond, Kingston-upon-Thames and Merton. There are
currently about 64,000 full-time teachers in the capital.

Headteachers have warned they may have to lay off support staff, reduce
the school week and stop teaching some subjects to avoid losing teachers.

Many have written begging letters to parents asking for them to
contribute financially to help fill the budget gap.

The figures are based on Department for Education data which shows
schools across the capital face a real-terms cut of £360 million in
2018/19, an average of £333 per pupil.
Handsome Jack
2017-05-17 16:28:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Yes, that's right. Teachers are only in it for the money. Fortunately
our wise and generous Tory government looks after the interests of our
children, the next generation, and makes sure that they receive the
education that they need.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/education/tory-changes-to-school-funding-
threaten-18000-london-teaching-jobs-by-2020-a3539226.html
Tory changes to school funding threaten 18,000 London teaching jobs by 2020
Changes to the Government’s school funding formula could result in
the equivalent of 17,645 teaching posts being lost across London over
the next three years, a new analysis showed today.
The money will be redistributed to other parts of England. London isn't
the only place that matters.
--
Jack
Yellow
2017-05-17 21:47:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Handsome Jack
Post by The Todal
Yes, that's right. Teachers are only in it for the money. Fortunately
our wise and generous Tory government looks after the interests of our
children, the next generation, and makes sure that they receive the
education that they need.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/education/tory-changes-to-school-funding-
threaten-18000-london-teaching-jobs-by-2020-a3539226.html
Tory changes to school funding threaten 18,000 London teaching jobs by 2020
Changes to the Government?s school funding formula could result in
the equivalent of 17,645 teaching posts being lost across London over
the next three years, a new analysis showed today.
The money will be redistributed to other parts of England. London isn't
the only place that matters.
Not having school kids I don't follow education, but I have seen a local
story complaining that per child, schools here get far less cash than
schools in other parts of the country.

That struck me as weird. Surely a child is a child and it costs the
same-ish to educate them where ever they live.
R. Mark Clayton
2017-05-18 00:09:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Handsome Jack
Post by The Todal
Yes, that's right. Teachers are only in it for the money. Fortunately
our wise and generous Tory government looks after the interests of our
children, the next generation, and makes sure that they receive the
education that they need.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/education/tory-changes-to-school-funding-
threaten-18000-london-teaching-jobs-by-2020-a3539226.html
Tory changes to school funding threaten 18,000 London teaching jobs by 2020
Changes to the Government?s school funding formula could result in
the equivalent of 17,645 teaching posts being lost across London over
the next three years, a new analysis showed today.
The money will be redistributed to other parts of England. London isn't
the only place that matters.
Not having school kids I don't follow education, but I have seen a local
story complaining that per child, schools here get far less cash than
schools in other parts of the country.
That struck me as weird. Surely a child is a child and it costs the
same-ish to educate them where ever they live.
No not really - premises costs, inner London weighting, higher enery use (in Scotland and the sticks) etc. all play a part in the cost, however in principle it should be broadly the same.
Handsome Jack
2017-05-18 07:46:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Yellow
Not having school kids I don't follow education, but I have seen a local
story complaining that per child, schools here get far less cash than
schools in other parts of the country.
That struck me as weird. Surely a child is a child and it costs the
same-ish to educate them where ever they live.
No not really - premises costs, inner London weighting, higher enery
use (in Scotland and the sticks) etc. all play a part in the cost,
however in principle it should be broadly the same.
School funding is heavily weighted by a 'deprivation index' calculated
according to local socio-economic factors, one of which is the number of
pupils whose first language is not English. London schools obviously
benefit disproportionately from this.
--
Jack
Mike Swift
2017-05-17 23:11:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The money will be redistributed to other parts of England. London isn't the
only place that matters.
You think.

Mike
--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange
Norman Wells
2017-05-17 08:49:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
It's an excellent manifesto, so the Tories can't pretend that it is
another Michael Foot longest suicide note in history.
As non-sequiturs go, that's a pretty good one.
Post by The Todal
All they can say,
with the assistance of a tame Tory economist or two, is that the
policies are unaffordable. We can't afford a proper NHS or a properly
funded education system, the Tories tell us.
It's all about choices. We can have those things of course. But we
can't have them *as well as* abolishing student tuition fees,
reintroducing student grants, recruiting 10000 extra police officers,
3000 extra prison officers and 1000 extra border guards, making school
meals free, and renationalising railways, fuel companies, the Royal
Mail, water companies etc etc ad infinitum.

Not unless you believe Diane Abbott anyway.
Yellow
2017-05-17 12:07:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@icloud.com
says...
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by The Todal
You've read it all, have you? Every page?
I skipped some of the waffle.
This has already been announced but it puzzles the fuck out of me -
We will drop the Conservatives?
Great Repeal Bill, replacing it
with an EU Rights and Protections
Bill that will ensure there is no
detrimental change to workers?
rights, equality law, consumer
rights or environmental protections
as a result of Brexit.
So no transferring EU legislation into UK law - how is that going to
work? They really are a bunch of clowns.
No, their proposed legislation would indeed have to transfer EU
legislation into UK law (ie, those parts that we want to keep) but
instead of a Great Repeal Bill that is little more than a series of
algorithms, importing EU data without subjecting it to close
parliamentary scrutiny, it will be a considered attempt to focus on the
rights that we want to protect.
OK. So rather than just transfer it all over and then decide what we
want to keep and what we want to change, Labour's plan is to go through
it all and only transfer what we want to keep, and then have new
legislation for what we want to change.

First, how is doing it that way better and second, how is it going to be
achieved in the time scales?
Post by The Todal
They aren't a bunch of clowns.
Tens of thousands of bits of legislation and Labour's plan is to go
through it all and pass new legislation to replace it, and have it in
place for 29 March 2019.

Does that not risk the country waking up one day with, in some areas,
no legislation in place?
Post by The Todal
It's an excellent manifesto, so the Tories can't pretend that it is
another Michael Foot longest suicide note in history. All they can say,
with the assistance of a tame Tory economist or two, is that the
policies are unaffordable.
The Labour Party leadership have produced the manifesto we all expected.

Whether or not the public will go for it, we will find out in a few
week's time.
Post by The Todal
We can't afford a proper NHS or a properly
funded education system, the Tories tell us.
I must have missed that memo.
Post by The Todal
http://www.schoolcuts.org.uk/#!/
jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew aliash)
2017-05-17 13:28:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
They aren't a bunch of clowns.
It's an excellent manifesto, so the Tories can't pretend that it is
another Michael Foot longest suicide note in history.
It's exactly that. Labour is dead in the water.
The Todal
2017-05-17 13:30:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 17/05/2017 14:28, jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch
Post by jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew aliash)
Post by The Todal
They aren't a bunch of clowns.
It's an excellent manifesto, so the Tories can't pretend that it is
another Michael Foot longest suicide note in history.
It's exactly that. Labour is dead in the water.
Oh, definitely. Don't bother going to the polling station if you're a
Tory voter. Have a nice day out to your nearest National Trust manor,
and enjoy the lovely trappings of wealth and the cream teas.
Norman Wells
2017-05-17 14:00:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
On 17/05/2017 14:28, jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch
Post by jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew aliash)
Post by The Todal
They aren't a bunch of clowns.
It's an excellent manifesto, so the Tories can't pretend that it is
another Michael Foot longest suicide note in history.
It's exactly that. Labour is dead in the water.
Oh, definitely. Don't bother going to the polling station if you're a
Tory voter. Have a nice day out to your nearest National Trust manor,
and enjoy the lovely trappings of wealth and the cream teas.
Is there something wrong or morally corrupt about enjoying what you've
worked for, and redistributing your wealth how you choose?
The Todal
2017-05-17 14:20:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
On 17/05/2017 14:28, jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch
Post by jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew aliash)
Post by The Todal
They aren't a bunch of clowns.
It's an excellent manifesto, so the Tories can't pretend that it is
another Michael Foot longest suicide note in history.
It's exactly that. Labour is dead in the water.
Oh, definitely. Don't bother going to the polling station if you're a
Tory voter. Have a nice day out to your nearest National Trust manor,
and enjoy the lovely trappings of wealth and the cream teas.
Is there something wrong or morally corrupt about enjoying what you've
worked for, and redistributing your wealth how you choose?
I'm flattered that you come to me to seek such advice, as if I was your
rabbi. My answer to your question is no. And I very much enjoy my visits
to the many excellent National Trust destinations. Sissinghurst has
wonderful gardens which change month by month. On 8th June it would be
best to set off as early as possible so that you can spend the whole day
there and follow it with a nice dinner at a local gastropub.
Norman Wells
2017-05-17 14:29:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
On 17/05/2017 14:28, jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch
Post by jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew aliash)
Post by The Todal
They aren't a bunch of clowns.
It's an excellent manifesto, so the Tories can't pretend that it is
another Michael Foot longest suicide note in history.
It's exactly that. Labour is dead in the water.
Oh, definitely. Don't bother going to the polling station if you're a
Tory voter. Have a nice day out to your nearest National Trust manor,
and enjoy the lovely trappings of wealth and the cream teas.
Is there something wrong or morally corrupt about enjoying what you've
worked for, and redistributing your wealth how you choose?
I'm flattered that you come to me to seek such advice, as if I was your
rabbi. My answer to your question is no. And I very much enjoy my visits
to the many excellent National Trust destinations. Sissinghurst has
wonderful gardens which change month by month. On 8th June it would be
best to set off as early as possible so that you can spend the whole day
there and follow it with a nice dinner at a local gastropub.
Sound advice. In my constituency, my vote makes not a ha'porth of
difference. If they put a blue rosette on my wheelbarrow it would get
elected.
jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew aliash)
2017-05-17 15:16:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
On 17/05/2017 14:28, jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch
Post by jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew aliash)
Post by The Todal
They aren't a bunch of clowns.
It's an excellent manifesto, so the Tories can't pretend that it is
another Michael Foot longest suicide note in history.
It's exactly that. Labour is dead in the water.
Oh, definitely. Don't bother going to the polling station if you're a
Tory voter. Have a nice day out to your nearest National Trust manor,
and enjoy the lovely trappings of wealth and the cream teas.
Well, yes. Except for the fact that many of the new Tory voters have
never been anywhere near a National Trust property and wouldn't know a
cream tea if it jumped on them.
The Peeler
2017-05-17 15:21:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 17 May 2017 08:16:15 -0700, serbian bitch Razovic, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, making an ass
of herself as "jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry'
Post by jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew aliash)
Post by The Todal
Oh, definitely. Don't bother going to the polling station if you're a
Tory voter. Have a nice day out to your nearest National Trust manor,
and enjoy the lovely trappings of wealth and the cream teas.
Well, yes. Except for the fact that many of the new Tory voters have
never been anywhere near a National Trust property and wouldn't know a
cream tea if it jumped on them.
Haven't they and wouldn't they, poor retard? <BG>
--
sully to stinking Goran Razovic, our resident psychopath (aka "The Rectum"):
"frankly you're a dingleberry on usenet's ass"
MID: <be3854ef-b0ea-4bfa-b002-***@g5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>
Sick old pedo Andrew "Andrzej" Baron (aka "Exorcist Missile")
2017-05-18 07:36:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@4ax.com>,
a shiteating cowardly nazoid sub-louse PEDO named Andrew "Andrzej"
Post by jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew aliash)
Well, yes.
Stupid old pedo... sigh!
The Peeler
2017-05-17 15:12:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 17 May 2017 06:28:01 -0700, jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew
Post by jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew aliash)
Post by The Todal
It's an excellent manifesto, so the Tories can't pretend that it is
another Michael Foot longest suicide note in history.
It's exactly that. Labour is dead in the water.
You mean they are like YOU, you housebound frustrated sexually crippled
wanker? FAT chance! <BG>
--
Jack G. about dumb anal Razovic:
"WOW!!! This retarded squirrel made a comment."
Sick old pedo Andrew "Andrzej" Baron (aka "Exorcist Missile")
2017-05-18 07:34:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@4ax.com>,
a shiteating cowardly nazoid sub-louse PEDO named Andrew "Andrzej"
Post by jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew aliash)
It's exactly that. Labour is dead
So is this nazoid:

IN MEMORIAM: poem for a dead kraut nazoid
-----------------------------------------
There once was a Nazi named Kuhnen
Who never had sex with a woman.
He sucked dicks instead,
Got AIDS, now he's dead...
Good riddance to the filthy sub-human!


--In puking memory of the cocksucking nazoid Michael
Kuhnen, who led the German neo-Nazi movement, and, much
to the joy of decent people everywhere, died of AIDS.
http://tinyurl.com/bnrca2e
Fredxxx
2017-05-17 18:37:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
I notice that the Labour Party have not explained how they will pay for
nationalising the post office, rail, water, energy and the national
grid.
I guess they would just borrow the cash?
I thought the argument for borrowing for infrastructure spending went
that it produces jobs but I don't see how that argument works for
nationalisation as all the jobs are already filled.
The Labour bod on today's Daily Politics said McDonnell would reveal how
it is all going to be paid for over the next few days. I wait with
interest (as will the lenders).
You've read it all, have you? Every page?
I skipped some of the waffle.
This has already been announced but it puzzles the fuck out of me -
We will drop the Conservatives?
Great Repeal Bill, replacing it
with an EU Rights and Protections
Bill that will ensure there is no
detrimental change to workers?
rights, equality law, consumer
rights or environmental protections
as a result of Brexit.
So no transferring EU legislation into UK law - how is that going to
work? They really are a bunch of clowns.
Post by The Todal
http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/Images/manifesto-2017/Labour%20Manifesto%202017.pdf
Already got it thanks. :-p
Post by The Todal
Our manifesto is fully costed,
And the cost is huge - but we all knew that was going to be the case
because jam has to be paid for.
The electorate will shortly have the opportunity to accept or reject and
it is good that they have a very clear choice. It will be interesting.
But it is *not* fully costed, as the payment method for nationalisations
has been omitted.
If it helps they have said they would not renew the rail franchises.

But I already expect you knew that?
Norman Wells
2017-05-17 08:14:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
I notice that the Labour Party have not explained how they will pay for
nationalising the post office, rail, water, energy and the national
grid.
I guess they would just borrow the cash?
I thought the argument for borrowing for infrastructure spending went
that it produces jobs but I don't see how that argument works for
nationalisation as all the jobs are already filled.
The Labour bod on today's Daily Politics said McDonnell would reveal how
it is all going to be paid for over the next few days. I wait with
interest (as will the lenders).
I thought that was supposed to be made clear in the manifesto as we were
told. But we don't mind having the wool pulled over our eyes, do we?

I reckon they've got no idea how it's all going to be paid for and need
time to whistle up some ways that sound good, or else hope that the
matter gets submerged under other election events so it never has to be
answered. They will then say 'It's all in the manifesto, have you read
it?' as if that gives the answers, which of course it doesn't.

The top 5% of earners cannot possibly pay for all the things Labour
wants to do. It's very convenient thing for them to say, because of
course it's not you or I that will be paying - let the rich bastards
pay. But of course they do already. They're already taxed at pretty
punitive rates, and any extra government spending would have to be
generated by taxing them a lot more, which in turn will lead to them
leaving the country or finding legitimate ways to avoid paying, of which
there are quite a few.

It's pie-in-the-sky economics.

And we haven't even got on to the vast renationalisation projects and
how they're going to be funded.
The Todal
2017-05-17 08:38:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
I notice that the Labour Party have not explained how they will pay for
nationalising the post office, rail, water, energy and the national
grid.
I guess they would just borrow the cash?
I thought the argument for borrowing for infrastructure spending went
that it produces jobs but I don't see how that argument works for
nationalisation as all the jobs are already filled.
The Labour bod on today's Daily Politics said McDonnell would reveal how
it is all going to be paid for over the next few days. I wait with
interest (as will the lenders).
I thought that was supposed to be made clear in the manifesto as we were
told. But we don't mind having the wool pulled over our eyes, do we?
I reckon they've got no idea how it's all going to be paid for and need
time to whistle up some ways that sound good, or else hope that the
matter gets submerged under other election events so it never has to be
answered. They will then say 'It's all in the manifesto, have you read
it?' as if that gives the answers, which of course it doesn't.
The top 5% of earners cannot possibly pay for all the things Labour
wants to do. It's very convenient thing for them to say, because of
course it's not you or I that will be paying - let the rich bastards
pay. But of course they do already. They're already taxed at pretty
punitive rates, and any extra government spending would have to be
generated by taxing them a lot more, which in turn will lead to them
leaving the country or finding legitimate ways to avoid paying, of which
there are quite a few.
It's pie-in-the-sky economics.
That was a party political broadcast by Norman Wells. This broadcast
will be repeated regularly and is also available on catch-up.
Post by Norman Wells
And we haven't even got on to the vast renationalisation projects and
how they're going to be funded.
Government subsidies to the privatised rail network cost us more than
we'd pay to renationalise the rail industry.
Norman Wells
2017-05-17 09:21:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
And we haven't even got on to the vast renationalisation projects and
how they're going to be funded.
Government subsidies to the privatised rail network cost us more than
we'd pay to renationalise the rail industry.
If they're renationalised, the government will not only have to pay
those subsidies but all the running costs as well. It's what
nationalisation means.

And when I say 'the government', I mean 'us' of course.
Yellow
2017-05-17 11:27:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@icloud.com
says...
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
And we haven't even got on to the vast renationalisation projects and
how they're going to be funded.
Government subsidies to the privatised rail network cost us more than
we'd pay to renationalise the rail industry.
But that money will still be required, on top of what it is going to
cost to buy out the shareholders.

Given all our water bills are going to drop by £100 a year and rail
fares reduced, and energy bills capped, tax payer funding will need to
be increased to cover this giveaway.
JNugent
2017-05-17 12:43:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Government subsidies to the privatised rail network cost us more than
we'd pay to renationalise the rail industry.
The subsidies would still be necessary even if the industry were to be
snatched from its owners free of charge like Railtrack was.

Can you not remember the days of British Rail?
The Todal
2017-05-17 13:28:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Government subsidies to the privatised rail network cost us more than
we'd pay to renationalise the rail industry.
The subsidies would still be necessary even if the industry were to be
snatched from its owners free of charge like Railtrack was.
Can you not remember the days of British Rail?
Of course I remember the days of British Rail. The sandwiches were
awful, but the fares were easily affordable.
Norman Wells
2017-05-17 13:32:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Government subsidies to the privatised rail network cost us more than
we'd pay to renationalise the rail industry.
The subsidies would still be necessary even if the industry were to be
snatched from its owners free of charge like Railtrack was.
Can you not remember the days of British Rail?
Of course I remember the days of British Rail. The sandwiches were
awful, but the fares were easily affordable.
But how much did it cost the poor taxpayer?

Shall we ask Diane?
JNugent
2017-05-17 17:20:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Government subsidies to the privatised rail network cost us more than
we'd pay to renationalise the rail industry.
The subsidies would still be necessary even if the industry were to be
snatched from its owners free of charge like Railtrack was.
Can you not remember the days of British Rail?
Of course I remember the days of British Rail. The sandwiches were
awful, but the fares were easily affordable.
And the subsidies?

And the subsidies for other nationalised ands municipalised industries?
R. Mark Clayton
2017-05-17 18:38:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Government subsidies to the privatised rail network cost us more than
we'd pay to renationalise the rail industry.
The subsidies would still be necessary even if the industry were to be
snatched from its owners free of charge like Railtrack was.
Can you not remember the days of British Rail?
Of course I remember the days of British Rail. The sandwiches were
awful,
true - actually saw the instructions for making them
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
but the fares were easily affordable.
well until they abolished the weekend return in 1987...
Post by JNugent
And the subsidies?
And the subsidies for other nationalised and municipalised industries?
Well the railways are still subsidised now, but
~1945 - 1995 half a century, passengers well down despite an increased population and greater prosperity, freight halved. Regular accidents.
1997 - 2017 two decades - passengers doubled (pretty much to capacity) and freight up 50%. No passengers killed for over ten years.

So what is the difference between the two eras?
b***@hotmail.com
2017-05-17 19:43:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Government subsidies to the privatised rail network cost us more than
we'd pay to renationalise the rail industry.
The subsidies would still be necessary even if the industry were to be
snatched from its owners free of charge like Railtrack was.
Can you not remember the days of British Rail?
Of course I remember the days of British Rail. The sandwiches were
awful, but the fares were easily affordable.
And the subsidies?
See page 2 of this document http://www.orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/22982/rail-finance-statistical-release-2015-16.pdf
Post by JNugent
And the subsidies for other nationalised ands municipalised industries?
JNugent
2017-05-19 14:01:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@hotmail.com
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Government subsidies to the privatised rail network cost us more than
we'd pay to renationalise the rail industry.
The subsidies would still be necessary even if the industry were to be
snatched from its owners free of charge like Railtrack was.
Can you not remember the days of British Rail?
Of course I remember the days of British Rail. The sandwiches were
awful, but the fares were easily affordable.
And the subsidies?
See page 2 of this document http://www.orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/22982/rail-finance-statistical-release-2015-16.pdf
No.

Tell me what it says. It is the overwhelming experience in these NGs
that URL citations given with a flourish usually have little to do with
the topic. Sometimes nothing to do with the topic.
Post by b***@hotmail.com
Post by JNugent
And the subsidies for other nationalised ands municipalised industries?
b***@hotmail.com
2017-05-19 14:40:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by b***@hotmail.com
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Government subsidies to the privatised rail network cost us more than
we'd pay to renationalise the rail industry.
The subsidies would still be necessary even if the industry were to be
snatched from its owners free of charge like Railtrack was.
Can you not remember the days of British Rail?
Of course I remember the days of British Rail. The sandwiches were
awful, but the fares were easily affordable.
And the subsidies?
See page 2 of this document http://www.orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/22982/rail-finance-statistical-release-2015-16.pdf
No.
Tell me what it says. It is the overwhelming experience in these NGs
that URL citations given with a flourish usually have little to do with
the topic. Sometimes nothing to do with the topic.
Post by b***@hotmail.com
Post by JNugent
And the subsidies for other nationalised ands municipalised industries?
Hey, I was just trying to be helpful. You asked about subsidies to British Rail, and I provided a link to a government-produced document showing the annual subsidy, year-on-year, from 1985/1986 through to 2015/2016. It therefore covers the decade or so prior to privatisation, and the period since. Have a look at it and draw your own conclusions.
Yellow
2017-05-17 21:39:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@icloud.com
says...
Post by The Todal
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Government subsidies to the privatised rail network cost us more than
we'd pay to renationalise the rail industry.
The subsidies would still be necessary even if the industry were to be
snatched from its owners free of charge like Railtrack was.
Can you not remember the days of British Rail?
Of course I remember the days of British Rail. The sandwiches were
awful, but the fares were easily affordable.
But no maintenance or modernisation was done, which was one of the main
reasons why it was privatised, to pay for it, and why so much work is
still, even now, being carried out.
The Todal
2017-05-17 09:05:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
I notice that the Labour Party have not explained how they will pay for
nationalising the post office, rail, water, energy and the national
grid.
I guess they would just borrow the cash?
I thought the argument for borrowing for infrastructure spending went
that it produces jobs but I don't see how that argument works for
nationalisation as all the jobs are already filled.
The Labour bod on today's Daily Politics said McDonnell would reveal how
it is all going to be paid for over the next few days. I wait with
interest (as will the lenders).
I thought that was supposed to be made clear in the manifesto as we were
told. But we don't mind having the wool pulled over our eyes, do we?
No mystery, it's all on the Labour Party website.

http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/Images/manifesto-2017/Funding%20Britain%27s%20Future.PDF
Norman Wells
2017-05-17 09:22:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
I notice that the Labour Party have not explained how they will pay for
nationalising the post office, rail, water, energy and the national
grid.
I guess they would just borrow the cash?
I thought the argument for borrowing for infrastructure spending went
that it produces jobs but I don't see how that argument works for
nationalisation as all the jobs are already filled.
The Labour bod on today's Daily Politics said McDonnell would reveal how
it is all going to be paid for over the next few days. I wait with
interest (as will the lenders).
I thought that was supposed to be made clear in the manifesto as we were
told. But we don't mind having the wool pulled over our eyes, do we?
No mystery, it's all on the Labour Party website.
http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/Images/manifesto-2017/Funding%20Britain%27s%20Future.PDF
The manifesto may be there, but the answers aren't.
Yellow
2017-05-17 11:52:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@icloud.com
says...
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
I notice that the Labour Party have not explained how they will pay for
nationalising the post office, rail, water, energy and the national
grid.
I guess they would just borrow the cash?
I thought the argument for borrowing for infrastructure spending went
that it produces jobs but I don't see how that argument works for
nationalisation as all the jobs are already filled.
The Labour bod on today's Daily Politics said McDonnell would reveal how
it is all going to be paid for over the next few days. I wait with
interest (as will the lenders).
I thought that was supposed to be made clear in the manifesto as we were
told. But we don't mind having the wool pulled over our eyes, do we?
No mystery, it's all on the Labour Party website.
http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/Images/manifesto-2017/Funding%20Britain%27s%20Future.PDF
And the cost of nationalisation? How is that going to be paid for?
Nightjar
2017-05-17 08:42:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
I notice that the Labour Party have not explained how they will pay for
nationalising the post office, rail, water, energy and the national
grid.
They have already said that the railways would be nationalised
piecemeal, as the existing franchises expire. That avoids having to pay
compensation, but they will still need to buy rolling stock.
Post by Yellow
I guess they would just borrow the cash?...
The system used the first time around was to guarantee ongoing payments
to the former private investors out of the profits of the nationalised
industry. That was intended to make the nationalisation self-funding.
--
--

Colin Bignell
Norman Wells
2017-05-17 09:23:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
I notice that the Labour Party have not explained how they will pay for
nationalising the post office, rail, water, energy and the national
grid.
They have already said that the railways would be nationalised
piecemeal, as the existing franchises expire. That avoids having to pay
compensation, but they will still need to buy rolling stock.
Post by Yellow
I guess they would just borrow the cash?...
The system used the first time around was to guarantee ongoing payments
to the former private investors out of the profits of the nationalised
industry. That was intended to make the nationalisation self-funding.
Profits? What profits?

At the moment we have to subsidise the damn things.
Yellow
2017-05-17 12:10:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
I notice that the Labour Party have not explained how they will pay for
nationalising the post office, rail, water, energy and the national
grid.
They have already said that the railways would be nationalised
piecemeal, as the existing franchises expire. That avoids having to pay
compensation, but they will still need to buy rolling stock.
And they would lose the payments, made to the government by the
franchise holders.
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
I guess they would just borrow the cash?...
The system used the first time around was to guarantee ongoing payments
to the former private investors out of the profits of the nationalised
industry. That was intended to make the nationalisation self-funding.
Profits? If bills are going to go down, were are these profits going to
come from?
R. Mark Clayton
2017-05-17 09:03:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
I notice that the Labour Party have not explained how they will pay for
nationalising the post office, rail, water, energy and the national
grid.
I guess they would just borrow the cash?
SNIP

Jeremy Corbyn has three sons, when they were younger he asked them all what they wanted for Christmas.

The first son said "Daddy, I would like a train set." so Jeremy went out and bought all the UK railways and put it on his credit card.

The second son said "Daddy, I would like a paddling pool.", so Jeremy went out and bought all the companies and put it on his credit card.

The third son said "Daddy I would like a cowboy outfit.", so Jeremy turned the Labour Party into one...
R. Mark Clayton
2017-05-17 09:05:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Yellow
I notice that the Labour Party have not explained how they will pay for
nationalising the post office, rail, water, energy and the national
grid.
I guess they would just borrow the cash?
SNIP
Jeremy Corbyn has three sons, when they were younger he asked them all what they wanted for Christmas.
The first son said "Daddy, I would like a train set." so Jeremy went out and bought all the UK railways and put it on his credit card.
The second son said "Daddy, I would like a paddling pool.", so Jeremy went out and bought all the water companies and put it on his credit card.
The third son said "Daddy I would like a cowboy outfit.", so Jeremy turned the Labour Party into one...
Phil L
2017-05-17 16:41:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
I notice that the Labour Party have not explained how they will pay
for nationalising the post office, rail, water, energy and the
national grid.
I guess they would just borrow the cash?
I thought the argument for borrowing for infrastructure spending went
that it produces jobs but I don't see how that argument works for
nationalisation as all the jobs are already filled.
The Labour bod on today's Daily Politics said McDonnell would reveal
how it is all going to be paid for over the next few days. I wait with
interest (as will the lenders).
The word Manifesto no longer means what it used to mean, nowadays it is
simply a list of lies told in order to gain votes, take the Conservatives'
perrenial 'immigration below 10,000' which is wheeled out every time there's
an election - they've no intention of even attempting to implement it.
Trump's bullshit about building a 'Great wall' and banning Muslims from
entering America - He, and the half dozen Yanks with a brain knew this could
never happen but it still got him elected president. All political parties
are full of shit so highlighting one particular lie over a different lie
promised by their opponents is a complete waste of time.
Loading...