[Link]

More than 10% cut for nurses predicted.

[Link]

Fall bellow 2004-05 levels predicted for public sector given stated government policy.

You say "liberal wet dream". That view is utterly absurd and one not recognised in most other OECD countries. See post from a Norwegian journalist. As to the assertion that the plans are affordable, given the current dynamics in our economy with monetary policy maxed out and QE being only used to support asset prices, there is a lot of room for manoeuvre in fiscal policy and expansionary fiscal policy is just that - expansionary. It will create growth and boost productivity. We've already seen on this thread that Labour have a significantly better record since the war on public debt and repaying debt. The idea that the Tories are trustworthy when it comes to the economy is a myth I find incredible that anyone with two brain cells believes.

Attachment: Norway.jpg (81.09Kb)

Just read the 'leaked' Labour manifesto highlights on the BBC - [Link]

It's hard to find more than one or two I disagree with, the problem, as ever, is that it's all about increased spending, with very limited details of where the money would come from, aside from the "claim the manifesto commitments are "fully costed" with all current spending paid for out of taxation or redirected revenue stream" - I just don't trust them.

There is also the question of renationalisation - just renationalising the railway doesn't mean it will get better (I first started commuting under British Rail, and it was dreadful)

EDIT: Obviously, I couldn't vote for a country led by a cabinet including Diane Abbott

Edited by npn (11 May 2017 11.00am)

I agree with you. I'm not against renationalising the Utilities and perhaps the Railways. The problem of course is that nationalised industries are usually run so inefficiently and wastefully. But in principle these services should be under state control. Other problems with Labour are their dippy views on defence and immigration. Also agree that the calibre of the Cabinet would be very poor as the more capable Labours MPs would not serve.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

What has been strong and stable about this Tory government exactly?

They way they handled the referendum? The way they've approached Brexit negotiations? Increased national debt whilst still cutting services left, right and centre?

The NHS in crisis with Jeremy Hunt and his nonsense? Schools having to write to parents asking for money?

Yeah, real strong and stable.

The leaked list of pledges might be unachievable, but it's a start. I can't really see how any one could actually disagree with the idea of them? People laugh at railways, but the East Coast line was a massive success under government control, before then being handed back to a private firm to make money. Southern rail? You think that's good?

I'd rather a government aimed for things like this, rather than just deciding it's too hard and just sticking to screwing over the ordinary people they claim to be fighting for.

If a Labour government was able to achieve just one of those goals, it would be a massive success in my opinion.

Employee of the month is a good example of how someone can be both a winner and a loser at the same time.

Just heard James o Brien for a few minutes on LBC prove the contrary. It's British nationalised industries that have been (past tense) run inefficiently. Some European ones are run efficiently, and some we've hired.

Edited by Rudi Hedman (11 May 2017 11.48am)

COYP

I suppose in many ways politicians are more honest than we usually make out. None of them have promised free drugs and hookers for example (or insert something that would appeal to lots of people).

The legally binding suggestion does resonate (whilst I appreciate it's not very feasible or likely). I wonder if it'd make policies even more vague though so that they couldn't be held so accountable.

Perhaps turn the government into a franchise with service level targets. Failure to meet their key objectives demotes them!

I can assure you Labour's plans are more economically sound than those of the Tories. Empirically and Theoretically.

Pretty much...and then that begs the question as to why they're in the manifesto...populist politics no more no less...the joke being that even when trying to be popular it seems to be backfiring on pretty much anyone other than party members... concentrate on one core issue and prove that it can be funded as well as how it will make a real difference to society.

Then when that's dealt with come up with something else that needs addressing.

Too many promises mean spreading resources (as they currently stand) too thinly and the liklihood of no real progress being made.

The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

It must be a bit disappointing for you then that they aren't assuring the general public that that's the case. Not disputing what you're saying though, I do respect you speak with significantly more authority on the subject than myself.

It may well be 'fully costed', but will the people he inteeds to take the money from hang around for it to be taken. Remember Healey's 83% top rate income tax and 98% tax on unearned income. People and businesses buggered off (including the Rolling Stones) - those who stayed pulled every trick in the book to avoid paying. As is often the case, when you raise taxes to punitive levels, the actual revenue income falls.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]