so my executive summary catching up on Lab's launch today is lots of tax for company's and their owners (including self employed Ltd businesses) and that Mcdonnell lied about a windfall tax on Oil companies last week....
What else?
Look at any page at random. My latest random choice landed on page 24, where I found:
Labour will introduce A Right to Food [what the hell is that?]. We will end ‘food bank Britain’. We will ensure everyone has access to healthy, nutritious, sustainably produced food. We will halve food bank usage within a year and remove the need for them altogether in three years. We will establish a National Food Commission and review the Allotments Act. We will make food security a reason to intervene in the economy and work with local councils to minimise food waste.
Food banks wiped out in three years. I wonder if the Trussell Trust know about that?
Those aren't the only humdingers on just that one page.
And as for the stuff on employment...
Wow - is food to be nationalised too?
Looks lie they are thinking of nationalising something else
Farms, supermarkets, food producers - all of the above?
Rachel Riley: Corbyn is racist, here’s a photo of him (protesting racism) which I doctored in awful taste to fit my right wing agenda
People: that’s shit Rachel
Rachel: omg I’m being cyber bullied this is digusting can’t believe it I’m a poor white blonde girl leave me alone
Why not rebut the story rather than attack the journalist?
Because he supports Corbyn?
Riley is a troll
She isnt a journalist btw
She is a British television presenter and mathematician
You are acting as the troll BJO
She is a toxic and self-indulgent right-wing troll who has erased the suffering of black people in apartheid South Africa to smear Jeremy Corbyn as a racist
BTW you are the one supporting a man as PM you know is a racist
He is not racist
No he just likes saying racist things.
His 'letter boxes' was stupid but if you read the whole speech you would see his appeal was for tolerance and of course France has much stricter rules
What about the Kipling reading whilst in Myanmar, or his "watermelon smiles" and "piccaninnies" comments?
I am the fundraiser for a Trussell Trust foodbank (we need money as well as food!) Our mission statement is to end poverty in the UK and Trussell Trust does a lot of research in this area. Much as I would love to see Labour achieve its aim I fear their Magic Money Tree is getting as tall as Everest. Apart from that I do believe there will always be short term needs (redundancy, marriage break ups etc). However if someone reforms universal credit that would be a start.
It will be interesting to see how big the Tory magic money tree is. A dose of realistic hope would be good.
Good for you. The Trussell Trust does an excellent job, and I think it is inevitable that there will always be people who fall into the gaps in any welfare system no matter how generous it is, simply because state-provided benefits have to follow sets of rules.
On universal credit, the most urgent improvement is to make the initial payment faster. I believe Amber Rudd was working on getting that sorted when she was at DWP. I hope the government will prioritise this.
so my executive summary catching up on Lab's launch today is lots of tax for company's and their owners (including self employed Ltd businesses) and that Mcdonnell lied about a windfall tax on Oil companies last week....
What else?
Look at any page at random. My latest random choice landed on page 24, where I found:
Labour will introduce A Right to Food [what the hell is that?]. We will end ‘food bank Britain’. We will ensure everyone has access to healthy, nutritious, sustainably produced food. We will halve food bank usage within a year and remove the need for them altogether in three years. We will establish a National Food Commission and review the Allotments Act. We will make food security a reason to intervene in the economy and work with local councils to minimise food waste.
Food banks wiped out in three years. I wonder if the Trussell Trust know about that?
Those aren't the only humdingers on just that one page.
And as for the stuff on employment...
Wow - is food to be nationalised too?
Looks lie they are thinking of nationalising something else
Farms, supermarkets, food producers - all of the above?
Feck me they are deranged.
See every policy through the lens of McDonnell's Marxist views and it all makes sense e.g. What high speed internet policies have worked, well state planning in infrastructure, yes, state funding of this, debatable, owning and running a single nationwide ISP, absolutely not.
so my executive summary catching up on Lab's launch today is lots of tax for company's and their owners (including self employed Ltd businesses) and that Mcdonnell lied about a windfall tax on Oil companies last week....
What else?
Look at any page at random. My latest random choice landed on page 24, where I found:
Labour will introduce A Right to Food [what the hell is that?]. We will end ‘food bank Britain’. We will ensure everyone has access to healthy, nutritious, sustainably produced food. We will halve food bank usage within a year and remove the need for them altogether in three years. We will establish a National Food Commission and review the Allotments Act. We will make food security a reason to intervene in the economy and work with local councils to minimise food waste.
Food banks wiped out in three years. I wonder if the Trussell Trust know about that?
Those aren't the only humdingers on just that one page.
And as for the stuff on employment...
I am the fundraiser for a Trussell Trust foodbank (we need money as well as food!) Our mission statement is to end poverty in the UK and Trussell Trust does a lot of research in this area. Much as I would love to see Labour achieve its aim I fear their Magic Money Tree is getting as tall as Everest. Apart from that I do believe there will always be short term needs (redundancy, marriage break ups etc). However if someone reforms universal credit that would be a start.
It will be interesting to see how big the Tory magic money tree is. A dose of realistic hope would be good.
I agree your final sentence. It is sad to see topics like this become so heavily politicised that attention to causes and remedies is deflected by blame games and virtue points scoring.
Corbyn isn't a racist, he is simply expedient about racism. Right now, anti-semitism suits his political purposes, and so he tolerates it.
Apologies in advance for this because it's such an obvious comment, but I do think it ought to be made, so why not by me.
Here goes -
And many of Corbyn's biggest critics on this are not truly horrified by racism in all its forms, they are simply being opportunistic. Right now, the charge of antisemitism suits their political purposes and hence they push it for all they are worth.
There will be people doing that. But a problem in the party - and he acknowledges that just not the scale- does not last this long, escalate this much to point of him now being targeted (it was not until last year that many people started saying he personally was anti semitic) on the strength of opponent opportunism alone.
This isn't a no smoke without fire situation, it's an argument about who started the fire, stokes it and how big it is. Opponents will make hay with that, but their cynical commentary on that doesnt render the overall point moot.
Still struggling to square the stream of truly dire constituency polls for Labour, when their national numbers are stable and (maybe) dribbling upwards.
Any ideas? [BJO: Yougov is not being controlled by the Tories]
Isn't it just a story of tactical voting between LD and Lab (and poss Green) for many of those voters, though? Looking at the below, suggests huge tactical swings possible in remainia:
Precisely why the LDs will win seats like Guildford and (possibly) Wimbledon. Seats which would not be on the list without tactical voting.
Not after this Labour manifesto
Hmmm I too live in the Guildford constituency (only just Godalming close to Charterhouse School to be strictly accurate) . Guildford green belt group won my household vote, and most of my neighbours votes too (leafy private lane) in the locals due to the local planning shenanigans. However they will be going back to the tories nationally as will I - people are genuinely terrified of Corbyn.
I predict the polling taken after this launch will move Tories at least another couple of points ahead of Labour, at the expense of the LibDems. Former Tory voters have to be bonkers to continue voting for the LibDems for their Brexit position, at the risk of Corbyn's Mad Hatters Manifesto.
And a third election could be on the way as Gantz failed to form a government yesterday (Bibi having already failed). Presumably Bibi would fight it while under indictment with the hope of winning and gaining immunity, probably telling his supporters the charged a plot to stop him.
When the party that is the most sanctimonious about all the -isms and expects an electoral reward for its moral stance turns out to be full of racists, the political opportunity is served up on a silver platter. It would be a bit like if the Greens were being funded by oil & gas executives, or the SNP membership turned out to be mostly English second-home owners...
Ah, ok, so there's some of that. Yes, I thought as much.
A moral failing is somehow more forgivable in those who do not profess to have any morals.
I do get that, indeed feel it myself sometimes, but I will point out a consequence of this sentiment that is unhealthy. It means that people who have low standards can benefit from that fact. Since they get judged more leniently. We see this with Trump and with Johnson.
I am the fundraiser for a Trussell Trust foodbank (we need money as well as food!) Our mission statement is to end poverty in the UK and Trussell Trust does a lot of research in this area. Much as I would love to see Labour achieve its aim I fear their Magic Money Tree is getting as tall as Everest. Apart from that I do believe there will always be short term needs (redundancy, marriage break ups etc). However if someone reforms universal credit that would be a start.
It will be interesting to see how big the Tory magic money tree is. A dose of realistic hope would be good.
Good for you. The Trussell Trust does an excellent job, and I think it is inevitable that there will always be people who fall into the gaps in any welfare system no matter how generous it is, simply because state-provided benefits have to follow sets of rules.
On universal credit, the most urgent improvement is to make the initial payment faster. I believe Amber Rudd was working on getting that sorted when she was at DWP. I hope the government will prioritise this.
There will always be people who fall between the cracks in the welfare system, but if the cracks become yawning chasms then many more people will be at risk of hunger. In 2009/10 the Trussell Trust handed out 41,000 food parcels. In 2016/17 they handed out 1.2 million. You can't break the system that badly without it being deliberate.
This manifesto is going to be a trifle awkward for many Labour candidates. Basically those with a decent level of intelligence who are not a committed ideologues will feel personal humiliation backing this. Will the dam crack?
Still struggling to square the stream of truly dire constituency polls for Labour, when their national numbers are stable and (maybe) dribbling upwards.
Any ideas? [BJO: Yougov is not being controlled by the Tories]
Isn't it just a story of tactical voting between LD and Lab (and poss Green) for many of those voters, though? Looking at the below, suggests huge tactical swings possible in remainia:
Precisely why the LDs will win seats like Guildford and (possibly) Wimbledon. Seats which would not be on the list without tactical voting.
Not after this Labour manifesto
Hmmm I too live in the Guildford constituency (only just Godalming close to Charterhouse School to be strictly accurate) . Guildford green belt group won my household vote, and most of my neighbours votes too (leafy private lane) in the locals due to the local planning shenanigans. However they will be going back to the tories nationally as will I - people are genuinely terrified of Corbyn.
Christ, there's a whole bunch of them that want to take us back to the 70s. They're fucking scary. You're right to be terrified.
I predict the polling taken after this launch will move Tories at least another couple of points ahead of Labour, at the expense of the LibDems. Former Tory voters have to be bonkers to continue voting for the LibDems for their Brexit position, at the risk of Corbyn's Mad Hatters Manifesto.
I'm a little more pessimistic - I think it will be both Labour and Tories up, with Lib Dems suffering badly, plus a few points of juice rung out of the minor parties. The precise balance depends on the degree to which the Lab manifesto is seen as heralding the new Jerusalem or the new Caracas.
I am the fundraiser for a Trussell Trust foodbank (we need money as well as food!) Our mission statement is to end poverty in the UK and Trussell Trust does a lot of research in this area. Much as I would love to see Labour achieve its aim I fear their Magic Money Tree is getting as tall as Everest. Apart from that I do believe there will always be short term needs (redundancy, marriage break ups etc). However if someone reforms universal credit that would be a start.
It will be interesting to see how big the Tory magic money tree is. A dose of realistic hope would be good.
Good for you. The Trussell Trust does an excellent job, and I think it is inevitable that there will always be people who fall into the gaps in any welfare system no matter how generous it is, simply because state-provided benefits have to follow sets of rules.
On universal credit, the most urgent improvement is to make the initial payment faster. I believe Amber Rudd was working on getting that sorted when she was at DWP. I hope the government will prioritise this.
There will always be people who fall between the cracks in the welfare system, but if the cracks become yawning chasms then many more people will be at risk of hunger. In 2009/10 the Trussell Trust handed out 41,000 food parcels. In 2016/17 they handed out 1.2 million. You can't break the system that badly without it being deliberate.
This manifesto is going to receive a worse reception than Theresa's IMO.
Corbyn and McDonnell were given the benefit of doubt in 2017. People looked at them and just refused to believe what they had heard: 'Magic Grandpa and his mate are communists? Nah, look at their little faces. Fake news.'
They will look at them now and go: 'y'know what, they actually are bonkers, racist and in all likelihood, a bit evil too.'
At a time when people were yearning for an end to austerity, in contrast to what was on offer from May and Hammond, the 2017 manifesto had a degree of credibility at least. (You clearly think it had less credibility than I do, but that is beside the point.)
The problem for Labour with their 2019 manifesto is twofold:
1. This manifesto appears to have been constructed on the back of a belief that Labour lost in 2017 thanks to its 2017 manifesto not being radical enough. Hence we have spending commitments several times the scale of those in 2017. The result is utter disbelief that the manifesto is properly costed and much more widespread concern at the impact on interest rates, inflation and the personal finances of the many as well as the few if there was a serious attempt to implement it as published.
2. The Tories have responded by doing their best to give the impression that they are also willing to loosen the fiscal purse strings. Thus they pose as a safer alternative for those who are content with a less radical move in the direction of ending austerity. (I don't think that pose will last much beyond 12/12/2019, but again that's beside the point.)
They should've followed Umunna et al when they walked out, and formed a sane left wing party. Instead they've wibbled about things being unacceptable, and now they're campaigning for the unacceptable to be PM.
I wonder if the Tory manifesto "release it last" ploy was to check how much middle ground they had to aim at after the Lib Dem and more importantly Labour manifesto release.
Rachel Riley: Corbyn is racist, here’s a photo of him (protesting racism) which I doctored in awful taste to fit my right wing agenda
People: that’s shit Rachel
Rachel: omg I’m being cyber bullied this is digusting can’t believe it I’m a poor white blonde girl leave me alone
Why not rebut the story rather than attack the journalist?
Because he supports Corbyn?
Riley is a troll
She isnt a journalist btw
She is a British television presenter and mathematician
You are acting as the troll BJO
She is a toxic and self-indulgent right-wing troll who has erased the suffering of black people in apartheid South Africa to smear Jeremy Corbyn as a racist
BTW you are the one supporting a man as PM you know is a racist
He is not racist
No he just likes saying racist things.
His 'letter boxes' was stupid but if you read the whole speech you would see his appeal was for tolerance and of course France has much stricter rules
What about the Kipling reading whilst in Myanmar, or his "watermelon smiles" and "piccaninnies" comments?
I predict the polling taken after this launch will move Tories at least another couple of points ahead of Labour, at the expense of the LibDems. Former Tory voters have to be bonkers to continue voting for the LibDems for their Brexit position, at the risk of Corbyn's Mad Hatters Manifesto.
I'm a little more pessimistic - I think it will be both Labour and Tories up, with Lib Dems suffering badly, plus a few points of juice rung out of the minor parties. The precise balance depends on the degree to which the Lab manifesto is seen as heralding the new Jerusalem or the new Caracas.
Isn't Jerusalem being sequestered by Israel? Must be Caracas then.
Labour's stuff on the NHS is comically incoherent (pages 32 and 33). It's hard to know where to start.
A moratorium on bed cuts - Really? Even when doctors increasingly recommend much shorter hospital stays and use of day surgery, which are often much better for patients?
We will ensure data protection for NHS and patient information, a highly valuable publicly funded resource that can be used for better diagnosis of conditions and for ground-breaking research. We will ensure NHS data is not exploited by international technology and pharmaceutical corporations. - Err, it can't be used for better diagnosis and ground-breaking research if you don't let pharmaceutical companies use it.
We will increase expenditure across the health sector by an average 4.3% a year. This investment enables us to end patient charges, guarantee the standards of healthcare patients are entitled to receive from NHS England, invest in education for the health workforce and restore public health grants. That seems rather a lot for an extra 4.3% a year, especially as the first thing they'd do in increase wages by 5%, and they'd also reduce staff hours, ban parking charges, abolish prescription charges, 'halt the fire sale of NHS land and assets' [what 'fire sale??'], waste money on ideology, plant an 'NHS forest of one million trees', and 'ensure the NHS becomes a net zero-carbon service'. All that for an extra 4.3% a year.
Every penny spent on privatisation and outsourcing is a penny less spent on patient care. I think the problem here must be that Corbyn doesn't know what 'outsourcing' means. It's hard to think of any other explanation for this bizarre sentence.
I am the fundraiser for a Trussell Trust foodbank (we need money as well as food!) Our mission statement is to end poverty in the UK and Trussell Trust does a lot of research in this area. Much as I would love to see Labour achieve its aim I fear their Magic Money Tree is getting as tall as Everest. Apart from that I do believe there will always be short term needs (redundancy, marriage break ups etc). However if someone reforms universal credit that would be a start.
It will be interesting to see how big the Tory magic money tree is. A dose of realistic hope would be good.
Good for you. The Trussell Trust does an excellent job, and I think it is inevitable that there will always be people who fall into the gaps in any welfare system no matter how generous it is, simply because state-provided benefits have to follow sets of rules.
On universal credit, the most urgent improvement is to make the initial payment faster. I believe Amber Rudd was working on getting that sorted when she was at DWP. I hope the government will prioritise this.
There will always be people who fall between the cracks in the welfare system, but if the cracks become yawning chasms then many more people will be at risk of hunger. In 2009/10 the Trussell Trust handed out 41,000 food parcels. In 2016/17 they handed out 1.2 million. You can't break the system that badly without it being deliberate.
Are you suggesting in 2009/10 the Trussel Trust binned 1.2 million parcels of food . . . or have charitable donations increased that much?
Charities give out what they can, not what is needed. More food banks means more charity, it doesn't mean more demand.
This manifesto is going to receive a worse reception than Theresa's IMO.
Corbyn and McDonnell were given the benefit of doubt in 2017. People looked at them and just refused to believe what they had heard: 'Magic Grandpa and his mate are communists? Nah, look at their little faces. Fake news.'
They will look at them now and go: 'y'know what, they actually are bonkers, racist and in all likelihood, a bit evil too.'
At a time when people were yearning for an end to austerity, in contrast to what was on offer from May and Hammond, the 2017 manifesto had a degree of credibility at least. (You clearly think it had less credibility than I do, but that is beside the point.)
The problem for Labour with their 2019 manifesto is twofold:
1. This manifesto appears to have been constructed on the back of a belief that Labour lost in 2017 thanks to its 2017 manifesto not being radical enough. Hence we have spending commitments several times the scale of those in 2017. The result is utter disbelief that the manifesto is properly costed and much more widespread concern at the impact on interest rates, inflation and the personal finances of the many as well as the few if there was a serious attempt to implement it as published.
2. The Tories have responded by doing their best to give the impression that they are also willing to loosen the fiscal purse strings. Thus they pose as a safer alternative for those who are content with a less radical move in the direction of ending austerity. (I don't think that pose will last much beyond 12/12/2019, but again that's beside the point.)
Corbynistas will have none of this - they believe their bubble is a microcosm of decent society.
Labour's stuff on the NHS is comically incoherent (pages 32 and 33). It's hard to know where to start.
A moratorium on bed cuts - Really? Even when doctors increasingly recommend much shorter hospital stays and use of day surgery, which are often much better for patients?
We will ensure data protection for NHS and patient information, a highly valuable publicly funded resource that can be used for better diagnosis of conditions and for ground-breaking research. We will ensure NHS data is not exploited by international technology and pharmaceutical corporations. - Err, it can't be used for better diagnosis and ground-breaking research if you don't let pharmaceutical companies use it.
We will increase expenditure across the health sector by an average 4.3% a year. This investment enables us to end patient charges, guarantee the standards of healthcare patients are entitled to receive from NHS England, invest in education for the health workforce and restore public health grants. That seems rather a lot for an extra 4.3% a year, especially as the first thing they'd do in increase wages by 5%, and they'd also reduce staff hours, ban parking charges, abolish prescription charges, 'halt the fire sale of NHS land and assets' [what 'fire sale??'], waste money on ideology, plant an 'NHS forest of one million trees', and 'ensure the NHS becomes a net zero-carbon service'. All that for an extra 4.3% a year.
Every penny spent on privatisation and outsourcing is a penny less spent on patient care. I think the problem here must be that Corbyn doesn't know what 'outsourcing' means. It's hard to think of any other explanation for this bizarre sentence.
.. etc etc.
I would love to get some insight from experienced ministers of the last labour government, for them to honestly shake this stuff down from the left. As you said, 4.3% is not even going to touch the sides when you increase the day to day costs as proposed.
Labour's stuff on the NHS is comically incoherent (pages 32 and 33). It's hard to know where to start.
A moratorium on bed cuts - Really? Even when doctors increasingly recommend much shorter hospital stays and use of day surgery, which are often much better for patients?
We will ensure data protection for NHS and patient information, a highly valuable publicly funded resource that can be used for better diagnosis of conditions and for ground-breaking research. We will ensure NHS data is not exploited by international technology and pharmaceutical corporations. - Err, it can't be used for better diagnosis and ground-breaking research if you don't let pharmaceutical companies use it.
We will increase expenditure across the health sector by an average 4.3% a year. This investment enables us to end patient charges, guarantee the standards of healthcare patients are entitled to receive from NHS England, invest in education for the health workforce and restore public health grants. That seems rather a lot for an extra 4.3% a year, especially as the first thing they'd do in increase wages by 5%, and they'd also reduce staff hours, ban parking charges, abolish prescription charges, 'halt the fire sale of NHS land and assets' [what 'fire sale??'], waste money on ideology, plant an 'NHS forest of one million trees', and 'ensure the NHS becomes a net zero-carbon service'. All that for an extra 4.3% a year.
Every penny spent on privatisation and outsourcing is a penny less spent on patient care. I think the problem here must be that Corbyn doesn't know what 'outsourcing' means. It's hard to think of any other explanation for this bizarre sentence.
.. etc etc.
I would love to get some insight from experienced ministers of the last labour government, for them to honestly shake this stuff down from the left. As you said, 4.3% is not even going to touch the sides when you increase the day to day costs as proposed.
Increasing wages by 5% and funding by 4.3% would be a funding cut relative to wages not a funding increase!
Rachel Riley: Corbyn is racist, here’s a photo of him (protesting racism) which I doctored in awful taste to fit my right wing agenda
People: that’s shit Rachel
Rachel: omg I’m being cyber bullied this is digusting can’t believe it I’m a poor white blonde girl leave me alone
Why not rebut the story rather than attack the journalist?
Because he supports Corbyn?
Riley is a troll
She isnt a journalist btw
She is a British television presenter and mathematician
You are acting as the troll BJO
She is a toxic and self-indulgent right-wing troll who has erased the suffering of black people in apartheid South Africa to smear Jeremy Corbyn as a racist
BTW you are the one supporting a man as PM you know is a racist
He is not racist
No he just likes saying racist things.
His 'letter boxes' was stupid but if you read the whole speech you would see his appeal was for tolerance and of course France has much stricter rules
What about the Kipling reading whilst in Myanmar, or his "watermelon smiles" and "piccaninnies" comments?
I am the fundraiser for a Trussell Trust foodbank (we need money as well as food!) Our mission statement is to end poverty in the UK and Trussell Trust does a lot of research in this area. Much as I would love to see Labour achieve its aim I fear their Magic Money Tree is getting as tall as Everest. Apart from that I do believe there will always be short term needs (redundancy, marriage break ups etc). However if someone reforms universal credit that would be a start.
It will be interesting to see how big the Tory magic money tree is. A dose of realistic hope would be good.
Good for you. The Trussell Trust does an excellent job, and I think it is inevitable that there will always be people who fall into the gaps in any welfare system no matter how generous it is, simply because state-provided benefits have to follow sets of rules.
On universal credit, the most urgent improvement is to make the initial payment faster. I believe Amber Rudd was working on getting that sorted when she was at DWP. I hope the government will prioritise this.
There will always be people who fall between the cracks in the welfare system, but if the cracks become yawning chasms then many more people will be at risk of hunger. In 2009/10 the Trussell Trust handed out 41,000 food parcels. In 2016/17 they handed out 1.2 million. You can't break the system that badly without it being deliberate.
Are you suggesting in 2009/10 the Trussel Trust binned 1.2 million parcels of food . . . or have charitable donations increased that much?
Charities give out what they can, not what is needed. More food banks means more charity, it doesn't mean more demand.
And there’s absolutely no evidence of increases in food poverty and no increases in childhood undernourishment. Both of these stats are captured and have been for over a decade, the former by the EU and the latter by the nhs.
There will always be people who fall between the cracks in the welfare system, but if the cracks become yawning chasms then many more people will be at risk of hunger. In 2009/10 the Trussell Trust handed out 41,000 food parcels. In 2016/17 they handed out 1.2 million. You can't break the system that badly without it being deliberate.
They've hugely expanded the service to lots of new locations, so of course they are delivering more. The government has also stopped Gordon Brown's cynical policy of disallowing the DWP telling people about foodbanks.
If you're still going to claim it's the fault of the Tory government, then you've got a lot of explaining to do. You could start by trying to explain why food bank usage is much higher in Tory-run Germany and France than here.
As for 'deliberate' - really that is vile. Get a grip on yourself.
I am the fundraiser for a Trussell Trust foodbank (we need money as well as food!) Our mission statement is to end poverty in the UK and Trussell Trust does a lot of research in this area. Much as I would love to see Labour achieve its aim I fear their Magic Money Tree is getting as tall as Everest. Apart from that I do believe there will always be short term needs (redundancy, marriage break ups etc). However if someone reforms universal credit that would be a start.
It will be interesting to see how big the Tory magic money tree is. A dose of realistic hope would be good.
Good for you. The Trussell Trust does an excellent job, and I think it is inevitable that there will always be people who fall into the gaps in any welfare system no matter how generous it is, simply because state-provided benefits have to follow sets of rules.
On universal credit, the most urgent improvement is to make the initial payment faster. I believe Amber Rudd was working on getting that sorted when she was at DWP. I hope the government will prioritise this.
There will always be people who fall between the cracks in the welfare system, but if the cracks become yawning chasms then many more people will be at risk of hunger. In 2009/10 the Trussell Trust handed out 41,000 food parcels. In 2016/17 they handed out 1.2 million. You can't break the system that badly without it being deliberate.
Are you suggesting in 2009/10 the Trussel Trust binned 1.2 million parcels of food . . . or have charitable donations increased that much?
Charities give out what they can, not what is needed. More food banks means more charity, it doesn't mean more demand.
And there’s absolutely no evidence of increases in food poverty and no increases in childhood undernourishment. Both of these stats are captured and have been for over a decade, the former by the EU and the latter by the nhs.
Indeed. Increased charity is a sign of increased generosity because people feel they have more to give - not a sign of increased desperation.
Labour's stuff on the NHS is comically incoherent (pages 32 and 33). It's hard to know where to start.
A moratorium on bed cuts - Really? Even when doctors increasingly recommend much shorter hospital stays and use of day surgery, which are often much better for patients?
We will ensure data protection for NHS and patient information, a highly valuable publicly funded resource that can be used for better diagnosis of conditions and for ground-breaking research. We will ensure NHS data is not exploited by international technology and pharmaceutical corporations. - Err, it can't be used for better diagnosis and ground-breaking research if you don't let pharmaceutical companies use it.
We will increase expenditure across the health sector by an average 4.3% a year. This investment enables us to end patient charges, guarantee the standards of healthcare patients are entitled to receive from NHS England, invest in education for the health workforce and restore public health grants. That seems rather a lot for an extra 4.3% a year, especially as the first thing they'd do in increase wages by 5%, and they'd also reduce staff hours, ban parking charges, abolish prescription charges, 'halt the fire sale of NHS land and assets' [what 'fire sale??'], waste money on ideology, plant an 'NHS forest of one million trees', and 'ensure the NHS becomes a net zero-carbon service'. All that for an extra 4.3% a year.
Every penny spent on privatisation and outsourcing is a penny less spent on patient care. I think the problem here must be that Corbyn doesn't know what 'outsourcing' means. It's hard to think of any other explanation for this bizarre sentence.
When the party that is the most sanctimonious about all the -isms and expects an electoral reward for its moral stance turns out to be full of racists, the political opportunity is served up on a silver platter. It would be a bit like if the Greens were being funded by oil & gas executives, or the SNP membership turned out to be mostly English second-home owners...
Ah, ok, so there's some of that. Yes, I thought as much.
A moral failing is somehow more forgivable in those who do not profess to have any morals.
I do get that, indeed feel it myself sometimes, but I will point out a consequence of this sentiment that is unhealthy. It means that people who have low standards can benefit from that fact. Since they get judged more leniently. We see this with Trump and with Johnson.
"Oh, you know, X is just X. It's priced in."
I see what you mean, but like I said, it's a two-way street. If you make moral purity a major selling point and you're actually morally pure then you'll deservedly win credit for that. If it turns out you're falling far short of what you promised, then you yourself have set the standard according to which you should be judged, and should be penalised for it.
To be honest, it's one of the reasons why being on the right is in my bones, because we mostly recognise that there are limits to what you're going to get out of the crooked timber of humanity beyond basic decency, and so we don't try to impose the rigid codes of speech and behaviour so beloved of the other side. From that perspective, Labour's descent into antisemitism is just a particularly ugly example of the world's reality breaking through the utopian facade that covers every area of their policy platform.
Rachel Riley: Corbyn is racist, here’s a photo of him (protesting racism) which I doctored in awful taste to fit my right wing agenda
People: that’s shit Rachel
Rachel: omg I’m being cyber bullied this is digusting can’t believe it I’m a poor white blonde girl leave me alone
Why not rebut the story rather than attack the journalist?
Because he supports Corbyn?
Riley is a troll
She isnt a journalist btw
She is a British television presenter and mathematician
You are acting as the troll BJO
She is a toxic and self-indulgent right-wing troll who has erased the suffering of black people in apartheid South Africa to smear Jeremy Corbyn as a racist
BTW you are the one supporting a man as PM you know is a racist
He is not racist
No he just likes saying racist things.
His 'letter boxes' was stupid but if you read the whole speech you would see his appeal was for tolerance and of course France has much stricter rules
What about the Kipling reading whilst in Myanmar, or his "watermelon smiles" and "piccaninnies" comments?
I am the fundraiser for a Trussell Trust foodbank (we need money as well as food!) Our mission statement is to end poverty in the UK and Trussell Trust does a lot of research in this area. Much as I would love to see Labour achieve its aim I fear their Magic Money Tree is getting as tall as Everest. Apart from that I do believe there will always be short term needs (redundancy, marriage break ups etc). However if someone reforms universal credit that would be a start.
It will be interesting to see how big the Tory magic money tree is. A dose of realistic hope would be good.
Good for you. The Trussell Trust does an excellent job, and I think it is inevitable that there will always be people who fall into the gaps in any welfare system no matter how generous it is, simply because state-provided benefits have to follow sets of rules.
On universal credit, the most urgent improvement is to make the initial payment faster. I believe Amber Rudd was working on getting that sorted when she was at DWP. I hope the government will prioritise this.
There will always be people who fall between the cracks in the welfare system, but if the cracks become yawning chasms then many more people will be at risk of hunger. In 2009/10 the Trussell Trust handed out 41,000 food parcels. In 2016/17 they handed out 1.2 million. You can't break the system that badly without it being deliberate.
Are you suggesting in 2009/10 the Trussel Trust binned 1.2 million parcels of food . . . or have charitable donations increased that much?
Charities give out what they can, not what is needed. More food banks means more charity, it doesn't mean more demand.
And there’s absolutely no evidence of increases in food poverty and no increases in childhood undernourishment. Both of these stats are captured and have been for over a decade, the former by the EU and the latter by the nhs.
Indeed. Increased charity is a sign of increased generosity because people feel they have more to give - not a sign of increased desperation.
And I don’t want to take away from the great work done by the Trussel Trust person. Maybe it’s a case no of this demand been met exclusively by the food banks instead of a more informal local churches, family, friends and neighbours.
Rachel Riley: Corbyn is racist, here’s a photo of him (protesting racism) which I doctored in awful taste to fit my right wing agenda
People: that’s shit Rachel
Rachel: omg I’m being cyber bullied this is digusting can’t believe it I’m a poor white blonde girl leave me alone
Why not rebut the story rather than attack the journalist?
Because he supports Corbyn?
Riley is a troll
She isnt a journalist btw
She is a British television presenter and mathematician
You are acting as the troll BJO
She is a toxic and self-indulgent right-wing troll who has erased the suffering of black people in apartheid South Africa to smear Jeremy Corbyn as a racist
BTW you are the one supporting a man as PM you know is a racist
He is not racist
No he just likes saying racist things.
His 'letter boxes' was stupid but if you read the whole speech you would see his appeal was for tolerance and of course France has much stricter rules
What about the Kipling reading whilst in Myanmar, or his "watermelon smiles" and "piccaninnies" comments?
Still struggling to square the stream of truly dire constituency polls for Labour, when their national numbers are stable and (maybe) dribbling upwards.
Any ideas? [BJO: Yougov is not being controlled by the Tories]
Isn't it just a story of tactical voting between LD and Lab (and poss Green) for many of those voters, though? Looking at the below, suggests huge tactical swings possible in remainia:
Precisely why the LDs will win seats like Guildford and (possibly) Wimbledon. Seats which would not be on the list without tactical voting.
Not after this Labour manifesto
Hmmm I too live in the Guildford constituency (only just Godalming close to Charterhouse School to be strictly accurate) . Guildford green belt group won my household vote, and most of my neighbours votes too (leafy private lane) in the locals due to the local planning shenanigans. However they will be going back to the tories nationally as will I - people are genuinely terrified of Corbyn.
Odd. Most of the Tories I know in Guildford recognise that there is as much chance of Jezza getting his hands on power as of me being asked to chair the next Papal conclave. This seems to be freeing their vote rather tha locking it.
I am the fundraiser for a Trussell Trust foodbank (we need money as well as food!) Our mission statement is to end poverty in the UK and Trussell Trust does a lot of research in this area. Much as I would love to see Labour achieve its aim I fear their Magic Money Tree is getting as tall as Everest. Apart from that I do believe there will always be short term needs (redundancy, marriage break ups etc). However if someone reforms universal credit that would be a start.
It will be interesting to see how big the Tory magic money tree is. A dose of realistic hope would be good.
Good for you. The Trussell Trust does an excellent job, and I think it is inevitable that there will always be people who fall into the gaps in any welfare system no matter how generous it is, simply because state-provided benefits have to follow sets of rules.
On universal credit, the most urgent improvement is to make the initial payment faster. I believe Amber Rudd was working on getting that sorted when she was at DWP. I hope the government will prioritise this.
There will always be people who fall between the cracks in the welfare system, but if the cracks become yawning chasms then many more people will be at risk of hunger. In 2009/10 the Trussell Trust handed out 41,000 food parcels. In 2016/17 they handed out 1.2 million. You can't break the system that badly without it being deliberate.
Are you suggesting in 2009/10 the Trussel Trust binned 1.2 million parcels of food . . . or have charitable donations increased that much?
Charities give out what they can, not what is needed. More food banks means more charity, it doesn't mean more demand.
And there’s absolutely no evidence of increases in food poverty and no increases in childhood undernourishment. Both of these stats are captured and have been for over a decade, the former by the EU and the latter by the nhs.
Indeed. Increased charity is a sign of increased generosity because people feel they have more to give - not a sign of increased desperation.
I’ve never understood the demonisation of food banks. Do those opposed to them prefer that those who fall through the cracks should go hungry, scrounge from friends or steal food, or do they prefer to think they can abolish the cracks (which history says they can’t)?
Still struggling to square the stream of truly dire constituency polls for Labour, when their national numbers are stable and (maybe) dribbling upwards.
Any ideas? [BJO: Yougov is not being controlled by the Tories]
Isn't it just a story of tactical voting between LD and Lab (and poss Green) for many of those voters, though? Looking at the below, suggests huge tactical swings possible in remainia:
Precisely why the LDs will win seats like Guildford and (possibly) Wimbledon. Seats which would not be on the list without tactical voting.
Not after this Labour manifesto
Hmmm I too live in the Guildford constituency (only just Godalming close to Charterhouse School to be strictly accurate) . Guildford green belt group won my household vote, and most of my neighbours votes too (leafy private lane) in the locals due to the local planning shenanigans. However they will be going back to the tories nationally as will I - people are genuinely terrified of Corbyn.
Odd. Most of the Tories I know in Guildford recognise that there is as much chance of Jezza getting his hands on power as of me being asked to chair the next Papal conclave. This seems to be freeing their vote rather tha locking it.
I am the fundraiser for a Trussell Trust foodbank (we need money as well as food!) Our mission statement is to end poverty in the UK and Trussell Trust does a lot of research in this area. Much as I would love to see Labour achieve its aim I fear their Magic Money Tree is getting as tall as Everest. Apart from that I do believe there will always be short term needs (redundancy, marriage break ups etc). However if someone reforms universal credit that would be a start.
It will be interesting to see how big the Tory magic money tree is. A dose of realistic hope would be good.
Good for you. The Trussell Trust does an excellent job, and I think it is inevitable that there will always be people who fall into the gaps in any welfare system no matter how generous it is, simply because state-provided benefits have to follow sets of rules.
On universal credit, the most urgent improvement is to make the initial payment faster. I believe Amber Rudd was working on getting that sorted when she was at DWP. I hope the government will prioritise this.
There will always be people who fall between the cracks in the welfare system, but if the cracks become yawning chasms then many more people will be at risk of hunger. In 2009/10 the Trussell Trust handed out 41,000 food parcels. In 2016/17 they handed out 1.2 million. You can't break the system that badly without it being deliberate.
Are you suggesting in 2009/10 the Trussel Trust binned 1.2 million parcels of food . . . or have charitable donations increased that much?
Charities give out what they can, not what is needed. More food banks means more charity, it doesn't mean more demand.
C- in economics 101. More demand can lead to more supply, as additional foodbanks are set up to meet the need. Demand led supply is a long understood dynamic (although I would agree it is not the only one).
Still struggling to square the stream of truly dire constituency polls for Labour, when their national numbers are stable and (maybe) dribbling upwards.
Any ideas? [BJO: Yougov is not being controlled by the Tories]
Isn't it just a story of tactical voting between LD and Lab (and poss Green) for many of those voters, though? Looking at the below, suggests huge tactical swings possible in remainia:
Precisely why the LDs will win seats like Guildford and (possibly) Wimbledon. Seats which would not be on the list without tactical voting.
Not after this Labour manifesto
Hmmm I too live in the Guildford constituency (only just Godalming close to Charterhouse School to be strictly accurate) . Guildford green belt group won my household vote, and most of my neighbours votes too (leafy private lane) in the locals due to the local planning shenanigans. However they will be going back to the tories nationally as will I - people are genuinely terrified of Corbyn.
Odd. Most of the Tories I know in Guildford recognise that there is as much chance of Jezza getting his hands on power as of me being asked to chair the next Papal conclave. This seems to be freeing their vote rather tha locking it.
I'm reassured Your Holiness.
I think I am safe from that role. My wife descends from Guy de Montfort, he who was excommunicated for butchering his half brother during a papal conclave. I suspect the family is still on a list somewhere.
Still struggling to square the stream of truly dire constituency polls for Labour, when their national numbers are stable and (maybe) dribbling upwards.
Any ideas? [BJO: Yougov is not being controlled by the Tories]
Isn't it just a story of tactical voting between LD and Lab (and poss Green) for many of those voters, though? Looking at the below, suggests huge tactical swings possible in remainia:
Precisely why the LDs will win seats like Guildford and (possibly) Wimbledon. Seats which would not be on the list without tactical voting.
Not after this Labour manifesto
Hmmm I too live in the Guildford constituency (only just Godalming close to Charterhouse School to be strictly accurate) . Guildford green belt group won my household vote, and most of my neighbours votes too (leafy private lane) in the locals due to the local planning shenanigans. However they will be going back to the tories nationally as will I - people are genuinely terrified of Corbyn.
Odd. Most of the Tories I know in Guildford recognise that there is as much chance of Jezza getting his hands on power as of me being asked to chair the next Papal conclave. This seems to be freeing their vote rather tha locking it.
I'm reassured Your Holiness.
I think I am safe from that role. My wife descends from Guy de Montfort, he who was excommunicated for butchering his half brother during a papal conclave. I suspect the family is still on a list somewhere.
And you're posting? Python's Spanish Inquisition will be after you.
Forgive me if this has been posted already, but has everybody seen the first weekly fundraising umbers by the Electoral Commition?
The numbers are quite one-sided to say the least.
It does only cover one week, the 6 Nov -13 Nov, so it starts after the election was announced, and it may be that some donations where given just before, to avode having to be reported on like this, it may even be that Lab have deliberately kept there donations low in this week, so they can plead poverty and ask for lots of small donations. but...….
Rachel Riley: Corbyn is racist, here’s a photo of him (protesting racism) which I doctored in awful taste to fit my right wing agenda
People: that’s shit Rachel
Rachel: omg I’m being cyber bullied this is digusting can’t believe it I’m a poor white blonde girl leave me alone
Why not rebut the story rather than attack the journalist?
Because he supports Corbyn?
Riley is a troll
She isnt a journalist btw
She is a British television presenter and mathematician
You are acting as the troll BJO
She is a toxic and self-indulgent right-wing troll who has erased the suffering of black people in apartheid South Africa to smear Jeremy Corbyn as a racist
BTW you are the one supporting a man as PM you know is a racist
He is not racist
No he just likes saying racist things.
His 'letter boxes' was stupid but if you read the whole speech you would see his appeal was for tolerance and of course France has much stricter rules
What about the Kipling reading whilst in Myanmar, or his "watermelon smiles" and "piccaninnies" comments?
Labour's stuff on the NHS is comically incoherent (pages 32 and 33). It's hard to know where to start.
A moratorium on bed cuts - Really? Even when doctors increasingly recommend much shorter hospital stays and use of day surgery, which are often much better for patients?
We will ensure data protection for NHS and patient information, a highly valuable publicly funded resource that can be used for better diagnosis of conditions and for ground-breaking research. We will ensure NHS data is not exploited by international technology and pharmaceutical corporations. - Err, it can't be used for better diagnosis and ground-breaking research if you don't let pharmaceutical companies use it.
We will increase expenditure across the health sector by an average 4.3% a year. This investment enables us to end patient charges, guarantee the standards of healthcare patients are entitled to receive from NHS England, invest in education for the health workforce and restore public health grants. That seems rather a lot for an extra 4.3% a year, especially as the first thing they'd do in increase wages by 5%, and they'd also reduce staff hours, ban parking charges, abolish prescription charges, 'halt the fire sale of NHS land and assets' [what 'fire sale??'], waste money on ideology, plant an 'NHS forest of one million trees', and 'ensure the NHS becomes a net zero-carbon service'. All that for an extra 4.3% a year.
Every penny spent on privatisation and outsourcing is a penny less spent on patient care. I think the problem here must be that Corbyn doesn't know what 'outsourcing' means. It's hard to think of any other explanation for this bizarre sentence.
.. etc etc.
As a staff member I would say the NHS is comically incoherent.
I wonder if the Tory manifesto "release it last" ploy was to check how much middle ground they had to aim at after the Lib Dem and more importantly Labour manifesto release.
A country mile is the answer.
I thought the same.
So far, the Tory campaign has been very slick*.
With the exception of Boris being very average at debates and some others (Patel/JRM) shooting the party in the foot whenever they go on the airwaves, but they seem to have both been largely muzzled.
Boris uses the word "piccaninnies" once, an esoteric term that most people can neither understand nor spell.
Lefties: This is Very Bad.
Also Lefties: Let us repeat the word 50 million squillion times at every available opportunity. This is Very Good.
This has the look & feel of a Toby Young tweet.
Which I'm afraid from the perspective of all people of sound mind and good character is unambiguously Very Bad.
A love of polemic and taking down lefty hypocrisy is not restricted to just one man, you know!
That's true. However since Toby Young got his university place courtesy of his father, bought his first house in the 90s courtesy of a gift of £50 thousand from his father, has admitted to wanking over images of starving Africans, and spends his days gobbing off about what other people should to whilst holding down a non- job at the Spectator for far too much, I can honestly say that that maybe he does actually have a unique perspective...
...Or at least one that few others would admit to.
I wonder if the Tory manifesto "release it last" ploy was to check how much middle ground they had to aim at after the Lib Dem and more importantly Labour manifesto release.
A country mile is the answer.
I thought the same.
So far, the Tory campaign has been very slick*.
With the exception of Boris being very average at debates and some others (Patel/JRM) shooting the party in the foot whenever they go on the airwaves, but they seem to have both been largely muzzled.
Comments
Farms, supermarkets, food producers - all of the above?
Feck me they are deranged.
On universal credit, the most urgent improvement is to make the initial payment faster. I believe Amber Rudd was working on getting that sorted when she was at DWP. I hope the government will prioritise this.
https://youtu.be/xSRbHtd44TI
Apart from that, spot on!
A moral failing is somehow more forgivable in those who do not profess to have any morals.
I do get that, indeed feel it myself sometimes, but I will point out a consequence of this sentiment that is unhealthy. It means that people who have low standards can benefit from that fact. Since they get judged more leniently. We see this with Trump and with Johnson.
"Oh, you know, X is just X. It's priced in."
The problem for Labour with their 2019 manifesto is twofold:
1. This manifesto appears to have been constructed on the back of a belief that Labour lost in 2017 thanks to its 2017 manifesto not being radical enough. Hence we have spending commitments several times the scale of those in 2017. The result is utter disbelief that the manifesto is properly costed and much more widespread concern at the impact on interest rates, inflation and the personal finances of the many as well as the few if there was a serious attempt to implement it as published.
2. The Tories have responded by doing their best to give the impression that they are also willing to loosen the fiscal purse strings. Thus they pose as a safer alternative for those who are content with a less radical move in the direction of ending austerity. (I don't think that pose will last much beyond 12/12/2019, but again that's beside the point.)
They should've followed Umunna et al when they walked out, and formed a sane left wing party. Instead they've wibbled about things being unacceptable, and now they're campaigning for the unacceptable to be PM.
A country mile is the answer.
But he is 1,000,000,000 times better than having Corbyn as PM.
A moratorium on bed cuts - Really? Even when doctors increasingly recommend much shorter hospital stays and use of day surgery, which are often much better for patients?
We will ensure data protection for NHS and patient information, a highly valuable publicly funded resource that can be used for better diagnosis of conditions and for ground-breaking research. We will ensure NHS data is not exploited by international technology and pharmaceutical corporations. - Err, it can't be used for better diagnosis and ground-breaking research if you don't let pharmaceutical companies use it.
We will increase expenditure across the health sector by an average 4.3% a year. This investment enables us to end patient charges, guarantee the standards of healthcare patients are entitled to receive from NHS England, invest in education for the health workforce and restore public health grants. That seems rather a lot for an extra 4.3% a year, especially as the first thing they'd do in increase wages by 5%, and they'd also reduce staff hours, ban parking charges, abolish prescription charges, 'halt the fire sale of NHS land and assets' [what 'fire sale??'], waste money on ideology, plant an 'NHS forest of one million trees', and 'ensure the NHS becomes a net zero-carbon service'. All that for an extra 4.3% a year.
Every penny spent on privatisation and outsourcing is a penny less spent on patient care. I think the problem here must be that Corbyn doesn't know what 'outsourcing' means. It's hard to think of any other explanation for this bizarre sentence.
.. etc etc.
Charities give out what they can, not what is needed. More food banks means more charity, it doesn't mean more demand.
If you're still going to claim it's the fault of the Tory government, then you've got a lot of explaining to do. You could start by trying to explain why food bank usage is much higher in Tory-run Germany and France than here.
As for 'deliberate' - really that is vile. Get a grip on yourself.
To be honest, it's one of the reasons why being on the right is in my bones, because we mostly recognise that there are limits to what you're going to get out of the crooked timber of humanity beyond basic decency, and so we don't try to impose the rigid codes of speech and behaviour so beloved of the other side. From that perspective, Labour's descent into antisemitism is just a particularly ugly example of the world's reality breaking through the utopian facade that covers every area of their policy platform.
https://youtu.be/FAxkcPoLYcQ
The playbook though to sell it seems a 2016 EU ref redux , a vote against the establishment etc .
Not sure the IFS will make much difference to events , he will be portrayed as one of the elite working against the people.
As a normal Labour voter I think the manifesto is a mix of some good pledges and some pretty stupid ones.
The numbers are quite one-sided to say the least.
It does only cover one week, the 6 Nov -13 Nov, so it starts after the election was announced, and it may be that some donations where given just before, to avode having to be reported on like this, it may even be that Lab have deliberately kept there donations low in this week, so they can plead poverty and ask for lots of small donations. but...….
Con £5,700,000
Lab £200,000
Lib Dem £275,000
So far, the Tory campaign has been very slick*.
With the exception of Boris being very average at debates and some others (Patel/JRM) shooting the party in the foot whenever they go on the airwaves, but they seem to have both been largely muzzled.
...Or at least one that few others would admit to.
Cons then had to introduce incentives which resulted in negative tax take recently.
Absolute balls up.
They might have a slight personal vote, but they're not exactly Joe Manchin......