Join the Labour Party and save your country!

mamba80

thats from 2011 and in dollars, inc taxes too, which are obviously down to the Gov of the day.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

thats from 2011 and in dollars, inc taxes too, which are obviously down to the Gov of the day.

If you look at your own source, we are cheaper than Italy, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Denmark and Ireland when you include taxes - which is the real cost to the consumer. Not so bad after all.

Stevo_666

Leopards and spots...
https://www.ft.com/content/0914c192-24cc-11e7-a34a-538b4cb30025

The more left wing Labour has been, the more they have been trashed in past elections. This is looking encouraging

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Leopards and spots...
https://www.ft.com/content/0914c192-24cc-11e7-a34a-538b4cb30025

Apparently if you earn over £70k a year you are rich in the eyes of John McDonnell and will be punished.

http://en.kiosko.net/uk/np/sun.html

As you like the SUN, here is their take on May and the tories Tax plans...... i was stunned but pleasantly pleased

no doubting that graduated tax bands would be better than jumping from 0 to 20% to 40% its not as if other countries dont do something similar and would reward hard work instead of creating a ceiling, i know i wonder why i do extra work just to give away 40% of the extra earnings.

Out of interest, why is it ok to introduce higher rate NI for the self employed starting at 16k but its NOT ok to rise the tax rate on someone earning 70k plus?

Lookyhere

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

thats from 2011 and in dollars, inc taxes too, which are obviously down to the Gov of the day.

If you look at your own source, we are cheaper than Italy, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Denmark and Ireland when you include taxes - which is the real cost to the consumer. Not so bad after all.

But not cheap enough to prevent that well known social interventionist, T May from promising to tell the regulator to cap prices...... you d never have thought that they been in power for 7 years and have consistently told us that competition is the fix for profiteering :roll:

The UK being the 7th most expensive in Europe isnt something to be proud of.

Jez mon

From a socks and sandals wearing liberal environmentalist point of view...

Expensive energy costs at the point of the consumer are not something that can be simply written off as bad. We would all be better off putting a jumper on rather than cranking the central heating up to 25C.

Lots of money going into the energy companies can't be simply written off as "bad" either. So long as they are using it to research/build cleaner sources of energy.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Leopards and spots...
https://www.ft.com/content/0914c192-24cc-11e7-a34a-538b4cb30025

Apparently if you earn over £70k a year you are rich in the eyes of John McDonnell and will be punished.

http://en.kiosko.net/uk/np/sun.html

As you like the SUN, here is their take on May and the tories Tax plans...... i was stunned but pleasantly pleased

no doubting that graduated tax bands would be better than jumping from 0 to 20% to 40% its not as if other countries dont do something similar and would reward hard work instead of creating a ceiling, i know i wonder why i do extra work just to give away 40% of the extra earnings.

Out of interest, why is it ok to introduce higher rate NI for the self employed starting at 16k but its NOT ok to rise the tax rate on someone earning 70k plus?

You're getting the right attitude about tax - wondering why you slave away to subsidise others who don't It's not a ceiling though as the rate only kicks in on the earning above threshold as we all know.

Not sure who you think said it was 'OK' to raise NI ? The main difference would be the mgnitude of the impact but as neither will happen its a bit theoretical.

Stevo_666

Lookyhere wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

thats from 2011 and in dollars, inc taxes too, which are obviously down to the Gov of the day.

If you look at your own source, we are cheaper than Italy, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Denmark and Ireland when you include taxes - which is the real cost to the consumer. Not so bad after all.

But not cheap enough to prevent that well known social interventionist, T May from promising to tell the regulator to cap prices...... you d never have thought that they been in power for 7 years and have consistently told us that competition is the fix for profiteering :roll:

The UK being the 7th most expensive in Europe isnt something to be proud of.

If you look at the coungries where it is cheap in mambas link they are mostly Eastern European nations where wages and costs of living are much cheaper anyway. The only notable exception is France which subsisidises energy heavily - so they end up topping up the cost via taxes. And we all know how high taxes are in France. So overall we are in a pretty good position. Good try to do the country down, but still a fail

Would your solution be to have a single state owned provider with no competition? If so, please explain how that makes it better.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

thats from 2011 and in dollars, inc taxes too, which are obviously down to the Gov of the day.

If you look at your own source, we are cheaper than Italy, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Denmark and Ireland when you include taxes - which is the real cost to the consumer. Not so bad after all.

But not cheap enough to prevent that well known social interventionist, T May from promising to tell the regulator to cap prices...... you d never have thought that they been in power for 7 years and have consistently told us that competition is the fix for profiteering :roll:

The UK being the 7th most expensive in Europe isnt something to be proud of.

If you look at the coungries where it is cheap in mambas link they are mostly Eastern European nations where wages and costs of living are much cheaper anyway. The only notable exception is France which subsisidises energy heavily - so they end up topping up the cost via taxes. And we all know how high taxes are in France. So overall we are in a pretty good position. Good try to do the country down, but still a fail

Would your solution be to have a single state owned provider with no competition? If so, please explain how that makes it better.

hold on bud, its not me who is proposing a cap on energy prices and when Labour under Miliband suggested such a thing, there were howls of derision, no doubt from you too?

It's the present incumbent Tory Gov that wants this Soviet style intervention lol! no doubt to try an offset the fall in living standards their decision to leave the EU will bring.

i m not even sure if its even in the Labour parties plans anymore, labour want companies to to be forced to provide the cheapest tariff, a more sensible policy, esp as this would help those who struggle to get their heads around how easy it is to switch ie elderly, the poor with no internet or less educated households.

much better to concentrate on energy efficiency, something which the tories have failed to make house builders do, why might that be????

as for doing the country down, the Tories have done that all on their very own.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

thats from 2011 and in dollars, inc taxes too, which are obviously down to the Gov of the day.

If you look at your own source, we are cheaper than Italy, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Denmark and Ireland when you include taxes - which is the real cost to the consumer. Not so bad after all.

But not cheap enough to prevent that well known social interventionist, T May from promising to tell the regulator to cap prices...... you d never have thought that they been in power for 7 years and have consistently told us that competition is the fix for profiteering :roll:

The UK being the 7th most expensive in Europe isnt something to be proud of.

If you look at the coungries where it is cheap in mambas link they are mostly Eastern European nations where wages and costs of living are much cheaper anyway. The only notable exception is France which subsisidises energy heavily - so they end up topping up the cost via taxes. And we all know how high taxes are in France. So overall we are in a pretty good position. Good try to do the country down, but still a fail

Would your solution be to have a single state owned provider with no competition? If so, please explain how that makes it better.

hold on bud, its not me who is proposing a cap on energy prices and when Labour under Miliband suggested such a thing, there were howls of derision, no doubt from you too?

It's the present incumbent Tory Gov that wants this Soviet style intervention lol! no doubt to try an offset the fall in living standards their decision to leave the EU will bring.

i m not even sure if its even in the Labour parties plans anymore, labour want companies to to be forced to provide the cheapest tariff, a more sensible policy, esp as this would help those who struggle to get their heads around how easy it is to switch ie elderly, the poor with no internet or less educated households.

much better to concentrate on energy efficiency, something which the tories have failed to make house builders do, why might that be????

as for doing the country down, the Tories have done that all on their very own.

I don't agree with price controls generally. (If the energy companies are price fixing or operating a cartel in any way then fair enough, take action). But that's not enough to make me vote Labour given all the crap they are proposing in addition to price controls.

Let's get this into perspective though, we are talking about £100 per year per household. There are bigger issues.

kingstongraham

I think a coalition of chaos might be worth a try if what the Tories have delivered is strong and stable leadership over the last two years.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

I don't agree with price controls generally. (If the energy companies are price fixing or operating a cartel in any way then fair enough, take action). But that's not enough to make me vote Labour given all the crap they are proposing in addition to price controls.

Let's get this into perspective though, we are talking about £100 per year per household. There are bigger issues.

its a £1.7 billion perspective though isnt it? and one that is clearly (as is Labours ridiculous idea of extra 4 bank holidays) aimed at bribing the gullible, these sort of things do not make good policy.

someone somewhere will have to pay for this, if std tariffs come down, what will go up? either prices on other tariffs or less investment?

If there is a cartel or price fixing, thats illegal and the company directors would be liable.

Yep bigger issues, housing, low wages, transport, education and health for example, you d never think the tories have been in pwr for 7 years......

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I don't agree with price controls generally. (If the energy companies are price fixing or operating a cartel in any way then fair enough, take action). But that's not enough to make me vote Labour given all the crap they are proposing in addition to price controls.

Let's get this into perspective though, we are talking about £100 per year per household. There are bigger issues.

its a £1.7 billion perspective though isnt it? and one that is clearly (as is Labours ridiculous idea of extra 4 bank holidays) aimed at bribing the gullible, these sort of things do not make good policy.

someone somewhere will have to pay for this, if std tariffs come down, what will go up? either prices on other tariffs or less investment?

If there is a cartel or price fixing, thats illegal and the company directors would be liable.

Yep bigger issues, housing, low wages, transport, education and health for example, you d never think the tories have been in pwr for 7 years......

Like I said, I don't agree with it. I suspect this is an attempt to steal Labour's thunder which was not necessary (as Labour don't have any bloody thunder) and in my view poorly thought out.

Agree with you on the public holiday bribe. They are also promising to introduce the strikers charter, aka repealing the trade union act.

surrey_commuter

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I don't agree with price controls generally. (If the energy companies are price fixing or operating a cartel in any way then fair enough, take action). But that's not enough to make me vote Labour given all the crap they are proposing in addition to price controls.

Let's get this into perspective though, we are talking about £100 per year per household. There are bigger issues.

its a £1.7 billion perspective though isnt it? and one that is clearly (as is Labours ridiculous idea of extra 4 bank holidays) aimed at bribing the gullible, these sort of things do not make good policy.

someone somewhere will have to pay for this, if std tariffs come down, what will go up? either prices on other tariffs or less investment?

If there is a cartel or price fixing, thats illegal and the company directors would be liable.

Yep bigger issues, housing, low wages, transport, education and health for example, you d never think the tories have been in pwr for 7 years......

I have always lived by the mantra that words are cheap and that if a promise is not worth writing on the side of a bus then it is not worth considering.

tangled_metal

I wonder if there's any Londoners around to comment on the Dianne Abbott LBC interview. Never heard it but I read somewhere she's not so hot with figures! Thinks police can be recruited on £2 an hour rate. London's living wage is lower than up north. I'm pretty sure any police I know started on high 'teens back in the day.

Question. Should we expect politicians to be on top of their brief for interviews? I think they should but I could be showing my prejudice against leftie politicians with that.

Jez mon

Tangled Metal wrote:

I wonder if there's any Londoners around to comment on the Dianne Abbott LBC interview. Never heard it but I read somewhere she's not so hot with figures! Thinks police can be recruited on £2 an hour rate. London's living wage is lower than up north. I'm pretty sure any police I know started on high 'teens back in the day.

Question. Should we expect politicians to be on top of their brief for interviews? I think they should but I could be showing my prejudice against leftie politicians with that.

So eventually she did manage to remember the figures/squeeze out the correct numbers.

I kind of feel that it's preferable to have some policies than to just answer every question by shoehorning the phrase "strong and stable" into a sentence. But when you see that any slight verbal mistakes when talking through actual policies will get jumped on and torn to shreds by the journalists, then you can see why it's safer to just repeat the same soundbite.

Of course, I expect journos to hold politicians to account etc, but if this has the effect of just shutting down political discourse, it's harmful.

kingstongraham

Tangled Metal wrote:

I wonder if there's any Londoners around to comment on the Dianne Abbott LBC interview. Never heard it but I read somewhere she's not so hot with figures! Thinks police can be recruited on £2 an hour rate. London's living wage is lower than up north. I'm pretty sure any police I know started on high 'teens back in the day.

Question. Should we expect politicians to be on top of their brief for interviews? I think they should but I could be showing my prejudice against leftie politicians with that.

It's on their website... "if we recruit the 10,000 policemen and women over a four year period, we believe it will be about £300,000."

Then "about £80 million". Then "costs in year one when we anticipate recruiting about 250,000 policemen will be £64.3 million".

Then "we are recruiting 2,000 and perhaps 250".

Then someone must have handed her a piece of paper with even more numbers on it. £64.3m plus £139.1m plus £217m plus £298m.

Standard Diane Abbott really.

rick_chasey

Couldn't help but notice McDonnald standing at a rally recently in front of a Stalinist flag.

He's as bad as the skinhead thugs who bang on about Nazis.

Totalitarians. Awful.

kingstongraham

Jez mon wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

I wonder if there's any Londoners around to comment on the Dianne Abbott LBC interview. Never heard it but I read somewhere she's not so hot with figures! Thinks police can be recruited on £2 an hour rate. London's living wage is lower than up north. I'm pretty sure any police I know started on high 'teens back in the day.

Question. Should we expect politicians to be on top of their brief for interviews? I think they should but I could be showing my prejudice against leftie politicians with that.

So eventually she did manage to remember the figures/squeeze out the correct numbers.

I kind of feel that it's preferable to have some policies than to just answer every question by shoehorning the phrase "strong and stable" into a sentence. But when you see that any slight verbal mistakes when talking through actual policies will get jumped on and torn to shreds by the journalists, then you can see why it's safer to just repeat the same soundbite.

Of course, I expect journos to hold politicians to account etc, but if this has the effect of just shutting down political discourse, it's harmful.

Not in this case - listen to the interview. He is really just asking whether the pledge has been costed. It's not a slight verbal mistake in this case.

tangled_metal

Well if you're prepared to discuss your policies good on you. I'm not a fan of superficial soundbites but do believe that if you're confident enough to talk about something solid that can be checked then you better know it inside out. I'd rather not hear any politician coming across as incompetent. Whether I support their politics or not I hope that they're towards the top end of ability in the UK. Fluffing their own brief isn't impressive enough for a cabinet or shadow cabinet politician IMHO.

dav1d1

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/n ... licy-cost/

It's here and cringe worthy hearing she can't put a straight sentence together, first it's 10,000 than it's 250,000 out of the same money which labour has already pledged elsewhere.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Couldn't help but notice McDonnald standing at a rally recently in front of a Stalinist flag.

He's as bad as the skinhead thugs who bang on about Nazis.

Totalitarians. Awful.

Agree.

Except that in his case he is somebody who could conceivably end up holding the reins of power. Thankfully that's a very low probability right now.

Stevo_666

Dav1d1 wrote:

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nick-ferrari/diane-abbotts-agonising-interview-over-policy-cost/

It's here and cringe worthy hearing she can't put a straight sentence together, first it's 10,000 than it's 250,000 out of the same money which labour has already pledged elsewhere.

Lefties have never been strong on finance/economics/business etc - if they were, they probably wouldn't be lefties That and the oft repated phrase that its only other peoples' money, so they only worry about it to the extent they think the public worries about it.

rolf_f

Stevo 666 wrote:

Dav1d1 wrote:

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nick-ferrari/diane-abbotts-agonising-interview-over-policy-cost/

It's here and cringe worthy hearing she can't put a straight sentence together, first it's 10,000 than it's 250,000 out of the same money which labour has already pledged elsewhere.

Lefties have never been strong on finance/economics/business etc - if they were, they probably wouldn't be lefties That and the oft repated phrase that its only other peoples' money, so they only worry about it to the extent they think the public worries about it.

Whatever your politics are, it's a bit harsh to tar all non right wingers based on the crap that Abbott bilges out.

tangled_metal

Rolf F wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Lefties have never been strong on finance/economics/business etc - if they were, they probably wouldn't be lefties That and the oft repated phrase that its only other peoples' money, so they only worry about it to the extent they think the public worries about it.

Whatever your politics are, it's a bit harsh to tar all non right wingers based on the crap that Abbott bilges out.

+1

Abbott is a particularly bad example of a politician. Ideology over substance. She holds a viewpoint and that's never wrong. She's consistent, just like Corbyn. However there are decent and capable politicians from the left. It's just that the further left or right you go the standard kind of drops.

Other people's money? Pretty sure both main parties are guilty of that to some extent. They just do things differently.

Jez mon

Tangled Metal wrote:

Well if you're prepared to discuss your policies good on you. I'm not a fan of superficial soundbites but do believe that if you're confident enough to talk about something solid that can be checked then you better know it inside out. I'd rather not hear any politician coming across as incompetent. Whether I support their politics or not I hope that they're towards the top end of ability in the UK. Fluffing their own brief isn't impressive enough for a cabinet or shadow cabinet politician IMHO.

Abbott and her advisers did a utterly crap job on this to be fair. I do not think she is suited to the job.

My point is, with modern political news, the risk/reward based on discussing policy vs. spouting soundbites is so far tilted to just spouting soundbites, that we end up never actually discussing policies.

On the subject of pre-election costings, putting a precise figure on anything is going to be impossible. Or rather, putting an accurate precise figure is going to be impossible. Unless one of the parties has invented time travel, any "fully costed" manifesto policies are rubbish. The Tory party have repeatedly said they were going to cut the deficit to zero, but have been consistently miles away from this.

rjsterry

I'm not sure which is more dispiriting: a Labour party that seemingly cannot clearly explain their proposals, or a Conservative party who hide everything behind endless repetition of a mindless three word slogan. Even Osborne isn't impressed.

rjsterry

Jez mon wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Well if you're prepared to discuss your policies good on you. I'm not a fan of superficial soundbites but do believe that if you're confident enough to talk about something solid that can be checked then you better know it inside out. I'd rather not hear any politician coming across as incompetent. Whether I support their politics or not I hope that they're towards the top end of ability in the UK. Fluffing their own brief isn't impressive enough for a cabinet or shadow cabinet politician IMHO.

Abbott and her advisers did a utterly crap job on this to be fair. I do not think she is suited to the job.

My point is, with modern political news, the risk/reward based on discussing policy vs. spouting soundbites is so far tilted to just spouting soundbites, that we end up never actually discussing policies.

On the subject of pre-election costings, putting a precise figure on anything is going to be impossible. Or rather, putting an accurate precise figure is going to be impossible. Unless one of the parties has invented time travel, any "fully costed" manifesto policies are rubbish. The Tory party have repeatedly said they were going to cut the deficit to zero, but have been consistently miles away from this.

True. But you should be able to make a credible estimate on which the proposals are based. Maybe even a couple of costed scenarios based on better/worse circumstances.

shortfall

Abbott went on the Daily Politics and Jo Coburn made her sit through a recording of the car crash LBC interview before eviscerating her in the subsequent interview. It was beyond embarrassing.

kingstongraham

What I can't understand is they are saying that the Tories have unjustifiably cut 20,000 police officers, and they are pledging to increase by 10,000 (I think). Why not the other half?