Jeremy Corbyn Vol. 2

[Crafty_]

edh said:

You can dispute the costings in the Labour manifesto, but at least the policies are set out, clearly costed, and spending funded with tax rises.

Contrast with the vacuous Tory manifesto where nothing is costed.... and with over £100Bn of unfunded spending commitments in the last 7 years (the sum of their missed deficit targets), where is their fiscal credibility?
..or maybe deficit fetishism was wrong after all?

Dementia tax is a massive own goal. What's wrong with pooled risk?

If the Theresa May party is re-elected with only a slightly increased majority, (my expectation for this election) it will be very damaging for her. She will also completely own the Brexit negotiation disaster that will unfold over the next 18 months.

Apart from they didn't include the nationalisation of services. That has to be paid for, regardless of deficit.

Economists have also suggested the figures arent realistic.

Oh and McDonnell showed the weekend he has no idea , his answer was 'sell bond's.

Its not fully costed at all.

As I understand it the tory one just continues from budgets already set out.

[Europa1]

edh said:

Economists say nationalisation doesn't affect the deficit (new assets offset borrowing) but adds to debt. Debt is funded.

Please don't fall back on misleading bankrupt / credit card analogies...

I wasn't, don't worry.

[turbobloke]

Europa1 said:

edh said:

Economists say nationalisation doesn't affect the deficit (new assets offset borrowing) but adds to debt. Debt is funded.

Please don't fall back on misleading bankrupt / credit card analogies...

I wasn't, don't worry.

I'd be tempted not to go back to anything remotely similar to British Rail.

Also I'd be tempted to fall back on the fact that economists rarely get any projections right.

Basic stuff, hopelessly wrong.

The first is interest rate projections (orange) against reality (blue)...best not to start on the IMF in detail.

[Hoofy]

turbobloke said:

I'd be tempted not to go back to anything remotely similar to British Rail.

Also I'd be tempted to fall back on the fact that economists rarely get any projections right.

Basic stuff, hopelessly wrong.

Give them time, they'll be right eventually. Hopefully. Maybe.

[Shakermaker]

All this IRA talk, and lots of people ignoring the Conservative council member from South Croydon who was IN the IRA? Unless this is "Fake News" but I doubt it is - perhaps because they aren't an MP but just a council leader/member they aren't seen as important?

Worth remembering that - and why all the "terrorist sympathiser" tags are ultimately rather stupid if you don't know who is on your own team.

[edh]

turbobloke said:

Europa1 said:

edh said:

Economists say nationalisation doesn't affect the deficit (new assets offset borrowing) but adds to debt. Debt is funded.

Please don't fall back on misleading bankrupt / credit card analogies...

I wasn't, don't worry.

Also I'd be tempted to fall back on the fact that economists rarely get any projections right.

This isn't an economist's projection, just simply an accounting / economic rule.

[Lance Catamaran]

Shakermaker said:

All this IRA talk, and lots of people ignoring the Conservative council member from South Croydon who was IN the IRA? Unless this is "Fake News" but I doubt it is - perhaps because they aren't an MP but just a council leader/member they aren't seen as important?

Worth remembering that - and why all the "terrorist sympathiser" tags are ultimately rather stupid if you don't know who is on your own team.

The one who left the IRA, became a whistleblower and was marked for death because of it? Slight difference there.

[edh]

Crafty_ said:

Apart from they didn't include the nationalisation of services. That has to be paid for, regardless of deficit.

see earlier posts

Crafty_ said:

Economists have also suggested the figures arent realistic.

turbobloke said:

Also I'd be tempted to fall back on the fact that economists rarely get any projections right.

I guess you can always get economists to offer varying opinions

Crafty_ said:

Oh and McDonnell showed the weekend he has no idea , his answer was 'sell bond's.

It's called debt I believe.. seems like an idea to me

Crafty_ said:

As I understand it the tory one just continues from budgets already set out.

Where does it say that? Do you just give them a free pass?

Surely it should explain how the changes to policy affect the budget? Otherwise why bother with a manifesto?

How many people get no winter fuel allowance?

What money will be raised by the dementia tax?

Where is the £8bn /pa for the NHS coming from? is it £8bn every year or will it only be in the last year of the parliament (or is it no new money as Damien Green claimed?)

Why is the balanced budget now coming in 2025 not 2020? What are the changes in income & expenditure that drive this?

How much will reducing migration to "tens of thousands" cost us in reduced GDP (and therefore reduced income)

[Shakermaker]

Lance Catamaran said:

The one who left the IRA, became a whistleblower and was marked for death because of it? Slight difference there.

Yes, them. Admirable for them to have done so - but how is that then different to say, Martin McGuinness?

To me, an outsider who is grateful to have avoided The Troubles by virtue of being born and raised in SE England in the 1980s, I am just seeing something of a double standard being applied here to Corbyn - a man I don't intend to vote for - by those supporting the party that I will be voting for.

[turbobloke]

edh said:

turbobloke said:

Also I'd be tempted to fall back on the fact that economists rarely get any projections right.

I guess you can always get economists to offer varying opinions

Indeed, wrong varying opinions (projections).

Did you spot a correct projection in the interest rate and GDP projections, the former from various economists and the latter from the IMF

Anyway we needn't worry too much about nationalisations, firstly Corbyn and McD won't get the chance, secondly if they got the chance it wouldn't be paid for by borrowing

[anonymous-user]

El stovey said:

I'm no Corbyn fan but I don't believe he supports terrorism either. He's made it clear a few times he supports dialogue not the actual causes.

This PHs make him an enemy of the state, country hater stuff is a bit simplistic really. I notice as the election gets closer, it's being mentioned a few times on the TV also.

It seems a frantic rewriting of history based on the actions and words that came from him and the organisations he was part of.

The Labour List being a frontrunner - something he was a core part of.

Just after the Brighton bombing they (labour list) decided that the Labour party had 'lost it's nerve', because they condemned the bombing.

They also said "reaffirmed its support for, and solidarity with, the Irish republican movement” and “It certainly appears to be the case that the British only sit up and take notice when they are bombed into it”

Prior to this referring to Maggie "If she wants violence, then violence she will certainly get.”

These are not the statements of someone who is aiming for peace, they were aiming for a unilateral withdrawal from NI and were entirely happy for people to die, including the attempted assassination of the British PM.

[technodup]

Shakermaker said:

I am just seeing something of a double standard being applied here to Corbyn - a man I don't intend to vote for - by those supporting the party that I will be voting for.

A council member in the south east v the guy who wants to be prime minister in charge of the armed forces?

No, I can't see the difference either.

[Burwood]

technodup said:

Shakermaker said:

I am just seeing something of a double standard being applied here to Corbyn - a man I don't intend to vote for - by those supporting the party that I will be voting for.

A council member in the south east v the guy who wants to be prime minister in charge of the armed forces?

No, I can't see the difference either.

beat me to it-as if it had to be explained. And one other small point. One had actual blood on his hands, no?

[E24man]

Shakermaker said:

Lance Catamaran said:

The one who left the IRA, became a whistleblower and was marked for death because of it? Slight difference there.

Yes, them. Admirable for them to have done so - but how is that then different to say, Martin McGuinness?

To me, an outsider who is grateful to have avoided The Troubles by virtue of being born and raised in SE England in the 1980s, I am just seeing something of a double standard being applied here to Corbyn - a man I don't intend to vote for - by those supporting the party that I will be voting for.

The whistleblower admitted all of what she done, did Martin McGuinness ever go that far?

[Shakermaker]

- Everyone says JC is a terrorist sympathiser. But as far as I can tell, he's never actually made a bomb and killed dozens of people, or gone to such lengths to try and do anything to that end.

But then they are happy that they have someone who was, previously, an actual member of the terrorist organisation, and tried (but failed) to go and buy a load of weapons for the IRA, to be in their ranks and representing their party?

It just seems to be a cheap name calling exercise for the sake of it, promoted by various news outlets, when there are surely, far more effective ways of doing that, such as by pointing out the massive holes in his policies and the costs of them, or the ineffective team of people he has surrounded himself with?

[Vaud]

Shakermaker said:

ineffective team of people he has surrounded himself with?

Or the life long, paid up member of the Communist Party who just "converted"...

[CrutyRammers]

otolith said:

The changes to reduce the ability of people to offload the care of their elderly relatives onto the state while still pocketing their assets on death probably are an own goal in that they will upset a key Tory demographic. I don't think the leftist outrage is really ideologically pure, though. I'm surprised at Corbyn being so keen to use taxpayer's money to protect the transfer of unearned private wealth.

It's totally pure if your ideology is "hate the tories", which is pretty much what it seems to be for many.

[technodup]

Shakermaker said:

- Everyone says JC is a terrorist sympathiser. But as far as I can tell, he's never actually made a bomb and killed dozens of people, or gone to such lengths to try and do anything to that end.

Erm, that's why he's called a terrorist sympathiser and not a terrorist.

This is hard work.

[DT398]

Biggest problem with Corbyn for me is that his leadership capabilities have zero credibility, never mind his policies being bonkers. How can you claim to be leading anything credible whilst allowing your team to comprise McDonnell, Abbott, Thornberry, Rayner,.....the list goes on. I think he probably does it to make himself look something other than a complete fool. Or maybe he just doesn't care and you just have to be a certain "type" to be on the team.

They all need clearing out asap to make way for some kind of sensible opposition to provide some balance. No way this current bunch could be trusted to run a bath never mind an economy.

[Gargamel]

DT398 said:

Biggest problem with Corbyn for me is that his leadership capabilities have zero credibility, never mind his policies being bonkers. How can you claim to be leading anything credible whilst allowing your team to comprise McDonnell, Abbott, Thornberry, Rayner,.....the list goes on. I think he probably does it to make himself look something other than a complete fool. Or maybe he just doesn't care and you just have to be a certain "type" to be on the team.

They all need clearing out asap to make way for some kind of sensible opposition to provide some balance. No way this current bunch could be trusted to run a bath never mind an economy.

Everybody else with any competence or experience resigned.