Labour Manifesto Released - Polidicks

[QUOTE]Income tax would increase to 45p for people earning over £80,000, and 50p for those on more than £123,000. It also includes the nationalisation of England's 10 water companies and scrapping university tuition fees.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE] The manifesto also includes: Taking Britain's railways back into public ownership Moving towards a publicly owned energy system The "reasonable management" of immigration and no "bogus targets" Building 100,000 affordable homes a year Supporting the renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons system Offering an immediate guarantee about the status of EU nationals in the UK Refusing to leave the EU with no deal in place Make 4,000 additional homes available for rough sleepers to end homelessness Zero hours contracts will be banned to guarantee workers a "number of hours each week" Ban unpaid internships[/QUOTE] [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39930865]BBC Article[/url] [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-39906665]BBC Live Text Feed[/url] I'll try to go through and find other pledges to update the OP, but this seems like a very sensible and reasonable manifesto. I just hope (very optimistically) that for once there is an unexpected election result in which the better party actually wins.

My grandfather was involved in developing the electricity grid across the UK, and he believed that one of the biggest mistakes was privatising the water and electricity companies I agree will be interesting to see if others do, and how this goes down

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52235201]My grandfather was involved in developing the electricity grid across the UK, and he believed that one of the biggest mistakes was privatising the water and electricity companies I agree will be interesting to see if others do, and how this goes down[/QUOTE] The free market works pretty well when it comes to things like cars and phones, and it seems like people then assume it's going to work in areas where there isn't really the same room for innovation and/or competition just isn't as effective (i.e. healthcare where you aren't going to go to a different hospital when you're in an ambulance because they've got 2 for 1 on transplants). The funny thing is while it's being painted as pretty much communism in the media, in mainland Europe it'd all be considered standard

What are British people's thoughts about it? Seems similar enough to what our Labour and more-left wing parties would be talking about, though things such as transport etc. wouldn't be included (though we desperately need better public transport in Ireland).

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52235230]What are British people's thoughts about it? Seems similar enough to what our Labour and more-left wing parties would be talking about, though things such as transport etc. wouldn't be included (though we desperately need better public transport in Ireland).[/QUOTE] I've only seen a few people disagree with the manifesto, and most of them are the usual bunch of young white males that perpetuate the "got mine fuck you" attitude the Tories are known for. The whole thing has been plastered with "TAKING BRITAIN BACK TO THE 1970s!!!!11!" and most people kinda just stand there and question if that's supposed to be an insult. It's a strong manifesto that's being slated by media outlets that are [I]coincidentally[/I] owned by multi-billionaires.

The UK's economy was a mess through the 60s, 70 and 80s partly because of the mindset of "nationalise everything". Returning to that system of inefficiency is a great step backwards. I'd also be looking at Trident alternatives. While I think the system is effective at doing its job, it will mean one or two decades of greatly reduced defence spending on conventional forces. Though I recently heard the Dreadnought class will have a tonnage larger than that of the Ohio class despite having half the launch tubes. A diversified launch platform, common cruise missile systemwith a 50% increase in warhead count (i.e a similar number of warheads as France) would probably cover the deterrence needs of the UK and provide tactical flexibility. Though I might be misunderstanding, doesn't the UK have a very long and troubled history with state housing? I was under the impression most border on ghettos. I wondering if Corbyn had an aneurysm when his party force him to support Trident. [editline]16th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;52235214]The free market works pretty well when it comes to things like cars and phones, and it seems like people then assume it's going to work in areas where there isn't really the same room for innovation and/or competition just isn't as effective (i.e. healthcare where you aren't going to go to a different hospital when you're in an ambulance because they've got 2 for 1 on transplants). The funny thing is while it's being painted as pretty much communism in the media, in mainland Europe it'd all be considered standard[/QUOTE] Most of the EU is a liberalised energy market.

[QUOTE=download;52235257]The UK's economy was a mess through the 60s, 70 and 80s partly because of the mindset of "nationalise everything". Returning to that system of inefficiency is a great step backwards. I'd also be looking at Trident alternatives. While I think the system is effective at doing its job, it will mean one or two decades of greatly reduced defence spending on conventional forces. Though I recently heard the Dreadnought class will have a tonnage larger than that of the Ohio class despite having half the launch tubes. A diversified launch platform, common cruise missile systemwith a 50% increase in warhead count (i.e a similar number of warheads as France) would probably cover the deterrence needs of the UK and provide tactical flexibility. Though I might be misunderstanding, doesn't the UK have a very long and troubled history with state housing? I was under the impression most border on ghettos. I wondering if Corbyn had an aneurysm when his party force him to support Trident. [editline]16th May 2017[/editline] Most of the EU is a liberalised energy market.[/QUOTE] On trident, I expect Corbyn came around to the idea of compromising to win elections and get things done, which is a good sign for him. Also, I was talking about state owned infrastructure in general being pretty common.

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;52235266]On trident, I expect Corbyn came around to the idea of compromising to win elections and get things done, which is a good sign for him. Also, I was talking about state owned infrastructure in general being pretty common.[/QUOTE] Do you mean the transmission and distribution infrastructure? I can understand nationalising the distribution infrastructure as it's pretty much a natural monopoly, I'm neutral on the transmission infrastructure.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52235230]What are British people's thoughts about it? Seems similar enough to what our Labour and more-left wing parties would be talking about, though things such as transport etc. wouldn't be included (though we desperately need better public transport in Ireland).[/QUOTE] Ultimately, i's not what Labour says it wants to do that matters. It's weither you 'trust' them, under Corbyn, to deliver.

[QUOTE=download;52235271]Do you mean the transmission and distribution infrastructure? I can understand nationalising the distribution infrastructure as it's pretty much a natural monopoly, I'm neutral on the transmission infrastructure.[/QUOTE] To be honest, I don't know the specifics about power and will have to look into it more, my main thoughts were on healthcare and railways. Fun fact: the government spends more taxpayer money on the railways than it did when they were nationalised.

[QUOTE=Handsome Matt;52235303]yeah i love paying £150 to travel a few hundred miles on overpacked trains because they're privatised with huge huge huge profit margins that aren't reinvested back in to the system.[/QUOTE] Rail passenger numbers have more than doubled since privatisation. Though I can't say for certain I would guess that reducing overcrowding means massive rail upgrades are needed. This would mean massive amounts of compulsory acquisitions. I will say I think they need to be cut off from subsidies. Either they need to be able to survive on their own or it needs to be nationalised. You can't have your cake and eat it too. [editline]16th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;52235308]To be honest, I don't know the specifics about power and will have to look into it more, my main thoughts were on healthcare and railways. Fun fact: the government spends more taxpayer money on the railways than it did when they were nationalised.[/QUOTE] Yeah, that shouldn't be happening. Private companies should not be subsidised. Subsidised companies rarely have any incentive to fix themselves up because subsidies are easier and more reliable than actual competitive (and low cost) business.

banning unpaid internships and zero hero contracts is a good step forwards

With this manifesto and everything that's happening so far, does Labour have a chance to win? I've noticed that some news companies (Guardian, Independent, etc) are saying that Labour has a lot of support from young people (including me) as well as older citizens, but I want to hear Facepunch's opinion.

[QUOTE=GlebGuy;52235463]With this manifesto and everything that's happening so far, does Labour have a chance to win? I've noticed that some news companies (Guardian, Independent, etc) are saying that Labour has a lot of support from young people (including me) as well as older citizens, but I want to hear Facepunch's opinion.[/QUOTE] If young people voted more, it'd likely be a slam dunk* but we don't, so the tories will probably hold power. *Actually seen as the SNP have Scotland, they'd need a coalition with one or both of the SNP and Lib dems

They seem to be actually just putting what they are going to do, and what the tories are going to do as opposed to slagging off the other party (Ahem-Tories-Ahem) and honestly the policies seem sensible, and a lot better than what the tories have put foreword. They have my vote.

Bloody Phone [editline]16th May 2017[/editline] My Merge!

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52235201]My grandfather was involved in developing the electricity grid across the UK, and he believed that one of the biggest mistakes was privatising the water and electricity companies I agree will be interesting to see if others do, and how this goes down[/QUOTE] Yeah, it is absolutely ridiculous when we have publically owned French companies buying up our infrastructure

The manifesto looks great, at this point I think the biggest threat to labour this election is the fact that a lot of very uninformed people will simple vote for whatever their favourite tabloid tells them to vote for. Personally, I'm so happy to see a reasonable centre-left labour manifesto that not only puts improving the lives of regular British people first, but makes miles more financial sense than anything the Conservatives have come up with over the last few years.

[QUOTE=fulgrim;52237095]The manifesto looks great, at this point I think the biggest threat to labour this election is the fact that a lot of very uninformed people will simple vote for whatever their favourite tabloid tells them to vote for.[/QUOTE] Except that's not at all how it works. Newspapers don't and have never created public opinion, if anything they merely reflect the views of their readers. For example, it's no coincidence that in the 1990s, The Sun backed Tony Blair when his party was 20% ahead in the opinion polls and then switched back to the Tories when Labour became unpopular. The Sun just followed the way the wind was blowing because to continue to back the Tories would have been harmful to their sales, it makes financial sense for Newspapers to follow public opinion. It makes no sense for a newspaper to try and make public opinion. [QUOTE=fulgrim;52237095] Personally, I'm so happy to see a reasonable centre-left labour manifesto that not only puts improving the lives of regular British people first, but makes miles more financial sense than anything the Conservatives have come up with over the last few years.[/QUOTE] Except it doesn't make any financial sense. [URL="https://youtu.be/f8fHsT06CWM?t=15m18s"]On the Daily Politics show, Andrew Neil pretty much demolished the Labour spokesperson with regards to the manifesto's spending commitments[/URL]

[QUOTE=The mouse;52237349] It makes no sense for a newspaper to try and make public opinion. [/QUOTE] Only it does when a vast majority of the tabloids are owned by billionaires and they are running smears on the party that supports working/middle class people over the super rich. [QUOTE=The mouse;52237349] Except it doesn't make any financial sense. [URL="https://youtu.be/f8fHsT06CWM?t=15m18s"]On the Daily Politics show, Andrew Neil pretty much demolished the Labour spokesperson with regards to the manifesto's spending commitments[/URL][/QUOTE] Not really seeing anyone getting ~demolished~ it just looks like more of the same dull "how will they pay for it!?" rhetoric that seems to be levelled exclusively at labour. I don't remember there being a big deal about money being tight when It was time to spend billions on nuclear weapons, or rework the welfare state so it haemorrhaged money and made vulnerable people's lives miserable in the process. But if we want to make sure kids get decent school meals and ensure our healthcare system doesn't collapse- suddenly there's this narrative that our country is completely broke and can't afford to invest in the people's future.

[QUOTE=The mouse;52237349]Except that's not at all how it works. Newspapers don't and have never created public opinion, if anything they merely reflect the views of their readers. For example, it's no coincidence that in the 1990s, The Sun backed Tony Blair when his party was 20% ahead in the opinion polls and then switched back to the Tories when Labour became unpopular. The Sun just followed the way the wind was blowing because to continue to back the Tories would have been harmful to their sales, it makes financial sense for Newspapers to follow public opinion. It makes no sense for a newspaper to try and make public opinion. Except it doesn't make any financial sense. [URL="https://youtu.be/f8fHsT06CWM?t=15m18s"]On the Daily Politics show, Andrew Neil pretty much demolished the Labour spokesperson with regards to the manifesto's spending commitments[/URL][/QUOTE] Well it does. They are only borrowing to invest - not for day to day spending. Investment makes returns.. etc. Read the manifesto, especially the part about the Financial Rule.

Here's a spreadsheet of all the proposals calculated and costed. [img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_8qL3FVoAAJNKb.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=fulgrim;52237464]Only it does when a vast majority of the tabloids are owned by billionaires and they are running smears on the party that supports working/middle class people over the super rich.[/QUOTE] Except it really doesn't. Say for example in 1997, The Sun decided to support the Conservative Party, do you really think that they would have considered it worth the risk to their sales to support an unpopular cause on the off chance that they could sway 20% of the electorate? All the newspaper moguls are interested in is selling newspapers, the easiest way to do that is to take popular positions and tell the people what they want to hear. The general public don't like Jeremy Corbyn, whether it be because of his poor public speaking/media appearances, weak/past positions on defense or his choice of shadow cabinet ministers. Not because of anything the Tabloids tell them. Therefore it makes sense for the Tabloids to capitalise of this dislike of Jeremy Corbyn to sell newspapers. The argument you're making falls apart because there are Tabloids such as the Daily Mirror which do support the Labour Party, who are also owned by Billionaires. The reason they do so is because that's their niche in the market, not because their owners have some kind of social conscience. [QUOTE=fulgrim;52237464] Not really seeing anyone getting ~demolished~ it just looks like more of the same dull "how will they pay for it!?" rhetoric that seems to be levelled exclusively at labour. I don't remember there being a big deal about money being tight when It was time to spend billions on nuclear weapons, or rework the welfare state so it haemorrhaged money and made vulnerable people's lives miserable in the process. But if we want to make sure kids get decent school meals and ensure our healthcare system doesn't collapse and suddenly there's this narrative that our country is completely broke and can't afford to invest in the people's future.[/QUOTE] I actually agree with you in regards to both Trident and Welfare Reform(Although at this point Trident would probably cost more to scrap than to renew). But just because money has been poorly spent on frivolous projects in the past, doesn't mean it's justified to poorly spend even more money on frivolous projects in the future. Labour have no idea what the impact of nationalisation will be either on the market or the public finances, but they want to do it anyway because they believe it will make things better. Don't you think that Labour should actually try to find out whether nationalisation will actually improve things before flushing untold billions of pounds away? [QUOTE=Crumpet;52237598]Here's a spreadsheet of all the proposals calculated and costed. [img_thumb]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_8qL3FVoAAJNKb.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] Very poorly costed according to [URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/6bgqye/labours_costing_document/dhmg7vq/"]this post[/URL] on reddit and some others in the same thread.

[QUOTE=The mouse;52237618]Except it really doesn't. Say for example in 1997, The Sun decided to support the Conservative Party, do you really think that they would have considered it worth the risk to their sales to support an unpopular cause on the off chance that they could sway 20% of the electorate? All the newspaper moguls are interested in is selling newspapers, the easiest way to do that is to take popular positions and tell the people what they want to hear. The general public don't like Jeremy Corbyn, whether it be because of his poor public speaking/media appearances, weak/past positions on defense or his choice of shadow cabinet ministers. Not because of anything the Tabloids tell them. Therefore it makes sense for the Tabloids to capitalise of this dislike of Jeremy Corbyn to sell newspapers. The argument you're making falls apart because there are Tabloids such as the Daily Mirror which do support the Labour Party, who are also owned by Billionaires. The reason they do so is because that's their niche in the market, not because their owners have some kind of social conscience. I actually agree with you in regards to both Trident and Welfare Reform(Although at this point Trident would probably cost more to scrap than to renew). But just because money has been poorly spent on frivolous projects in the past, doesn't mean it's justified to poorly spend even more money on frivolous projects in the future. Labour have no idea what the impact of nationalisation will be either on the market or the public finances, but they want to do it anyway because they believe it will make things better. Don't you think that Labour should actually try to find out whether nationalisation will actually improve things before flushing untold billions of pounds away?[/QUOTE] Firstly, Corbyn isn't unpopular because of poor public speaking or media appearances, he's unpopular because he avoids soundbites and instead gives full, nuanced answers which whilst in full are generally intelligent, can also be cut down to an out of context smear with ease. Also, what do you expect them to do to find out if nationalisation will work, other than a white paper which I assume they'll do anyway. [editline]16th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=The mouse;52237618]Very poorly costed according to [URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/6bgqye/labours_costing_document/dhmg7vq/"]this post[/URL] on reddit and some others in the same thread.[/QUOTE] Literally underneath that [QUOTE]The nib is probably funded from borrowing, it's essentially infrastructure investment. They aren't funding any infrastructure via taxes. Probably the same for nationalisations. That would make sense to me, these aren't provisions for permanent costs but rather one off investments in assets. When they were sold initially the money was used to pay down the debt too, so this is just reversing that process.[/QUOTE] Also, his estimates are based on the leaked manifesto and not the final form. Looking at the FT article it's based on £33bn of day to day spending vs £25bn in taxation so clearly it's out of date

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;52237642]Firstly, Corbyn isn't unpopular because of poor public speaking or media appearances, he's unpopular because he avoids soundbites and instead gives full, nuanced answers which whilst in full are generally intelligent, can also be cut down to an out of context smear with ease.[/QUOTE] But avoiding soundbites and allowing yourself to be put in the a position where you can be smeared, may as well be the same thing as being a poor public speaker or putting on a poor media appearance. Say what you want about Theresa May but she speaks in terms which can be understood by everyone, and hence appear to put in good media performances. [QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;52237642]Also, what do you expect them to do to find out if nationalisation will work, other than a white paper which I assume they'll do anyway.[/QUOTE] I don't expect them to find out whether it will work, but that's my point. They have no way of knowing whether it will actually be a success, therefore it's a stupid risk to spend that much money on such a costly string of projects on a whim. The fact that the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats do this to varying extents, doesn't make it ok when Labour do it too.

[QUOTE=The mouse;52237618]Therefore it makes sense for the Tabloids to capitalise of this dislike of Jeremy Corbyn to sell newspapers. [/QUOTE] I'm not denying that this is a factor, but surely you can see that by this same logic it makes sense for them to cultivate and perpetuate this dislike to continue selling to and even attempt to expand their niche?. When many of the papers are printing outright fake news about Corbyn, taking quotes out of context, cropping photos to push an agenda then I couldn't care less about their motivations, they are still feeding people bullshit to serve their own interests- be they political, financial, or a combination of the two. [QUOTE=The mouse;52237712] Say what you want about Theresa May but she speaks in terms which can be understood by everyone, and hence appear to put in good media performances. [/QUOTE] She speaks like a robot trying to market a particular brand of toothpaste. Constant repetition of key phrases and refusing to respond to difficult questions isn't exactly amazing speaking imo. There's a huge difference between having your points edited and manipulated in post so that they are misrepresented, and whatever the fuck you would call Theresa May's "Brexit means brexit" style malfunctions.

[QUOTE=The mouse;52237712]But avoiding soundbites and allowing yourself to be put in the a position where you can be smeared, may as well be the same thing as being a poor public speaker or putting on a poor media appearance. Say what you want about Theresa May but she speaks in terms which can be understood by everyone, and hence appear to put in good media performances. I don't expect them to find out whether it will work, but that's my point. They have no way of knowing whether it will actually be a success, therefore it's a stupid risk to spend that much money on such a costly string of projects on a whim. The fact that the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats do this to varying extents, doesn't make it ok when Labour do it too.[/QUOTE] She doesn't speak in easy to understand terms, she just doesn't say anything other than 'strong and stable', 'lol he isn't wearing a tie' and 'we have a plan to solve problem x' without details. Also, they can make a reasonable judgement based on evidence from other countries, expert advice and proper research. You can't just not ever do anything because while you know it will likely work out, there's a small chance you'll fail.

I little good news that Labours and Conservatives are steadily increasing as Liberal Democrats and UKIP are steadily decreasing in current polls as help for either side. And SNP and Regional Greens remain unchanged to little increased. [IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/Opinion_polling_UK_2020_election_short_axis.png/1024px-Opinion_polling_UK_2020_election_short_axis.png[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52235201]My grandfather was involved in developing the electricity grid across the UK, and he believed that one of the biggest mistakes was privatising the water and electricity companies I agree will be interesting to see if others do, and how this goes down[/QUOTE] I think everyone knew privatizing electricity was dumb. They just wanted the short term cash.

[QUOTE=LAMB SAUCE;52238580]I think everyone knew privatizing electricity was dumb. They just wanted the short term cash.[/QUOTE] Most things seem to end up done around here to "balance books" short term with quick cash injections with very little regard for long term stability and growth.