Jeremy Corbyn (Vol. 3)
Discussion
rxe said:
vaud said:
Is it in the manifesto?
Manifesto isn’t out yet, but it’s been widely trailed....djohnson said:
Current view is it won’t be in the manifesto. They’re just about bright enough to figure out it’ll be unpopular and hence they’ll exclude it. I’m sure however it’ll be part of a terrifying shadow manifesto that’ll only become evident if we really were daft enough to put Marxists into power in the UK (and probably one of the much less extreme parts of their true, but currently hidden, manifesto).
Quite possibly. McDonnell is the threat, not Corbyn.Welshbeef said:
vaud said:
Quite possibly. McDonnell is the threat, not Corbyn.
Surely if labour lose both will resign from the leadership. Also depending on how badly they lose if horrific then the whole strategy is wrong and rebuild is needed. Remember they did much prefer to be angry opposition than actually having to go through with their promises.
MiniMan64 said:
They’ve already lost one election and not stood aside, what makes you think they’ll do it this time?
Remember they did much prefer to be angry opposition than actually having to go through with their promises.
They need absolutely smashing in this election, it's the only way Labour will be able to get the party back from momentum.Remember they did much prefer to be angry opposition than actually having to go through with their promises.
If that's a Schweppes bottle on the left of the photo, might I hazard that your lady friend risks feeling more than a bit unwell if she is drinking G&T and eating shellfish at the same time...?Captain Raymond Holt said:
stongle said:
The debt for equity swap / appropriation at book value is not technically possible unless willing to commit theft. Its not even a barter.
Can you elaborate on this? It’s not my area of financial expertise.‘We would pay a fair price as determined by Parliament’ seems to be quite important.....
Cretinous
Slaav said:
Captain Raymond Holt said:
stongle said:
The debt for equity swap / appropriation at book value is not technically possible unless willing to commit theft. Its not even a barter.
Can you elaborate on this? It’s not my area of financial expertise.‘We would pay a fair price as determined by Parliament’ seems to be quite important.....
Cretinous
t let alone these loonie policies. Forget a hung parliament, it would be insipid. MiniMan64 said:
Welshbeef said:
vaud said:
Quite possibly. McDonnell is the threat, not Corbyn.
Surely if labour lose both will resign from the leadership. Also depending on how badly they lose if horrific then the whole strategy is wrong and rebuild is needed. Remember they did much prefer to be angry opposition than actually having to go through with their promises.
Captain Raymond Holt said:
Can you elaborate on this? It’s not my area of financial expertise.
They are planning to compensate BT or other utility share holders in government debt NOT cash (and paying below market value). Alternatively, they have suggested issuing more debt to purchase the utilities, but in McDonnell accounting terms, issuing liabilities (government bonds), and buying utilities (assets) IS balance sheet neutral; which it isn't - (it might be cash neutral on day 1, but it's a balance sheet gross up). Basically, they are in cloud cuckoo land. And they are doing it on prime time media.
They haven't got a scooby on how to fund their pledges thus far, so are just making stuff up.
Hopefully the electorate are not buying it, but there needs to be a better examination of policy pledges.
You needn't bother hiding it, just promise unicorns and fairy dust - it makes as much real sense.
It worries me that policy issues are glossed over with the usual broad brush supporter labelling. There are a lot of posters whom can't or don't comment on actual policy; just the supporters of each party. Its asinine.
If there is a problem with Conservative immigration policy, expose it - not imply ALL Tory voters are closet EDL members. Likewise, if Labour has holes in the nunbers we should look at it.
Welshbeef said:
MiniMan64 said:
Welshbeef said:
vaud said:
Quite possibly. McDonnell is the threat, not Corbyn.
Surely if labour lose both will resign from the leadership. Also depending on how badly they lose if horrific then the whole strategy is wrong and rebuild is needed. Remember they did much prefer to be angry opposition than actually having to go through with their promises.
What is more of a worry is not McDOnnel who I think recognises that people find him as deeply unpleasant as he is
But if Momentum keep control of Labour, you'll get Raynor or Wrong Daily and they appear reasonable albeit as thick as pig s
tIt’s all priced in. Anybody who understands the numbers and cares won’t vote Labour anyway, so there’s nothing to lose in offering the moon on a stick.
Similarly, almost nobody who pays a lot of tax votes Labour, so they lose nothing by clobbering high earners. We can expect some pretty nasty stuff in the manifesto, and it will do them no harm at all.
Similarly, almost nobody who pays a lot of tax votes Labour, so they lose nothing by clobbering high earners. We can expect some pretty nasty stuff in the manifesto, and it will do them no harm at all.
stongle said:
They are planning to compensate BT or other utility share holders in government debt NOT cash (and paying below market value). Alternatively, they have suggested issuing more debt to purchase the utilities, but in McDonnell accounting terms, issuing liabilities (government bonds), and buying utilities (assets) IS balance sheet neutral; which it isn't - (it might be cash neutral on day 1, but it's a balance sheet gross up).
Basically, they are in cloud cuckoo land. And they are doing it on prime time media.
They haven't got a scooby on how to fund their pledges thus far, so are just making stuff up.
Hopefully the electorate are not buying it, but there needs to be a better examination of policy pledges.
You needn't bother hiding it, just promise unicorns and fairy dust - it makes as much real sense.
It worries me that policy issues are glossed over with the usual broad brush supporter labelling. There are a lot of posters whom can't or don't comment on actual policy; just the supporters of each party. Its asinine.
If there is a problem with Conservative immigration policy, expose it - not imply ALL Tory voters are closet EDL members. Likewise, if Labour has holes in the nunbers we should look at it.
Cheers!Basically, they are in cloud cuckoo land. And they are doing it on prime time media.
They haven't got a scooby on how to fund their pledges thus far, so are just making stuff up.
Hopefully the electorate are not buying it, but there needs to be a better examination of policy pledges.
You needn't bother hiding it, just promise unicorns and fairy dust - it makes as much real sense.
It worries me that policy issues are glossed over with the usual broad brush supporter labelling. There are a lot of posters whom can't or don't comment on actual policy; just the supporters of each party. Its asinine.
If there is a problem with Conservative immigration policy, expose it - not imply ALL Tory voters are closet EDL members. Likewise, if Labour has holes in the nunbers we should look at it.
ORD said:
It’s all priced in. Anybody who understands the numbers and cares won’t vote Labour anyway, so there’s nothing to lose in offering the moon on a stick.
Similarly, almost nobody who pays a lot of tax votes Labour, so they lose nothing by clobbering high earners. We can expect some pretty nasty stuff in the manifesto, and it will do them no harm at all.
You're giving the electorate far too much credit Similarly, almost nobody who pays a lot of tax votes Labour, so they lose nothing by clobbering high earners. We can expect some pretty nasty stuff in the manifesto, and it will do them no harm at all.
Many many people will study the manifestos as though the are written in stone and decide based on which they like best
I saw it at work, gorl I work with , lots of her friends apparently didn't really rate Corbyn but were very impressed with Corbyn's 2017 manifesto so voted Labour, terrifying
jakesmith said:
ORD said:
It’s all priced in. Anybody who understands the numbers and cares won’t vote Labour anyway, so there’s nothing to lose in offering the moon on a stick.
Similarly, almost nobody who pays a lot of tax votes Labour, so they lose nothing by clobbering high earners. We can expect some pretty nasty stuff in the manifesto, and it will do them no harm at all.
You're giving the electorate far too much credit Similarly, almost nobody who pays a lot of tax votes Labour, so they lose nothing by clobbering high earners. We can expect some pretty nasty stuff in the manifesto, and it will do them no harm at all.
Many many people will study the manifestos as though the are written in stone and decide based on which they like best
I saw it at work, gorl I work with , lots of her friends apparently didn't really rate Corbyn but were very impressed with Corbyn's 2017 manifesto so voted Labour, terrifying
Indeed, I accidentally strayed into a labour debate on facebook where I questioned the fallout from the broadband policy, and they were all adamant that there would be thousands of jobs created, that the likes of plusnet would still be in business and that Facebook are paying for it all. Militant like stance of their faithful comrade.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff