I too am not disagreeing with doing it now. I would and did disagree with it during the Tory/Lib Dem coalition however.

I am disillusioned with all of this.

I want Brexit but I want some UK meaningful policies and perhaps some pinching of other partys' policies.

Tories offer the former but little of the latter I predict.

Labour go silent on Brexit and Corbyn cannot, when questioned, we'll actually leave, even though article 50 has been triggered.

The swaying public want Brexit, but probably want progressive policies as well, even though they're not saying both, but can't trust a party that'll try and satisfy every requirement going. Oh that s me, although I am saying both. I bet there's plenty more too.

Edited by Rudi Hedman (12 May 2017 11.13am)

COYP

You criticised using the Guardian as a source yesterday and now are simply posting a Telegraph article...

Main source is a "Thatcherite think tank"...

The vast majority of well respected economists would point to the failure of austerity and its lack of substance in both theory and practice. Many would also point to the fact that there is a lot of spare capacity in the UK economy and expansionary fiscal policy which targets reduced inequality is precisely what the economy needs let alone the services relying on the investment.

Given the manifesto has not been properly released so the costings can't be assessed this is little more than conjecture from a right wing Tory supporter. It's also not based on any sensible economic analysis.

This was pretty comprehensively disproved yesterday on this very thread.

Also, if something is on a manifesto, there is a principle that the Lords will not block any bill which is an enactment of a manifesto pledge.

So if Labour get voted in and their manifest says they will renationalise the Railways or abolish the Tories Health and Social Care Act then the Lords will not block it.

It's therefore important to have policies on all areas that you want to address over the next 5 years.

Hahahaha I feel your pain....I'm very similar

The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Ok, i've often wondered what the main reasoning behind it was. Is there any sort of guarantee that re-nationalising will improve the service?

The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Ohh the irony.

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

Does anybody know how much money the British government owes the rest of the world on a net, aggregated basis, and how that has evolved over the past half a century? Same question for our net import/exports of goods and services.

Aren't answers to these questions the driving forces for every single decision this country has to make and, by extension, who we vote for? I know we can probably carry on as we are for many years with our current economic `model' (Willo-style quote marks deliberate) if we're lucky, but at some point this bites us when those whose stuff we buy find we are not a good market, or those who lend us money start thinking they wouldn't mind it back?

If you want to live in a world full of kindness, respect and love, try to show these qualities.

No there isn't. Nor was National Rail the wonder that some suggest.

But nationalisation of the railways has failed to deliver a massive improvement in service (other than increases in customer numbers) but has seen prices rise completely out of sync with inflation and continued under investment.

The problem is that the railways aren't a natural fit for the market as it has been implemented. Because there is not genuine competition. It could have been done better and then might have worked but the franchise system that we have is not an effective one.

Nationalisation doesn't make sense in all instances. The Royal Mail for example has been quite successful as a privatisation, the energy industry works to an extent (there is competition and the consumers who switch do experience benefits, but too few are still using that).

The abolition of tuition fees, while expensive, is welcome. There is stuff in the leaked manifesto that needs discussion. And deserves it. And the likelihood is that - as has been shown a few times already - Labour will manage to push the agenda into the Tory plans. But some of it seems nonsense.

Edited by OknotOK (12 May 2017 1.43pm)

"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show

The previous comment was that Labour get the country into mega debt. However the data suggests the Tories borrow more and always have done.

To argue that it's Labour's fault, which is what the poster said, would imply that over the 42 years that the Tories have been in power they've been forced to borrow due to Labour's spending. That's utterly incredible and suggests that the Tories own policies had nothing to do with it.

I find it hard to explain these figures in the context of 42 years of borrowing being the fault of the party NOT in government at the time. This is true even taking into account inflation and ignoring the GFC.

The biggest surplus run over those 70 years was in the post-war Labour government, which undertook significant government led expansionary Keynesian economic policies.

But all of this data could just be coincidental.