1.6 million cubic metres of concrete, 52,000 tonnes of steel 47 sq km (18 sq miles), including runways. 45 million capacity rising to 100 million.
Cost £9.1 Bn.
Amazing
Democracy is expensive, no doubt why the Chinese leadership consider it so silly.
In the UK you could whack on several billions onto that for planning, legal compensation, environmental, and health and safety regulation, and social and employment standards.
Utilities and railways are publicly-owned - at least in part - in a number of countries; rent controls are pretty mainstream, though self-defeating in most cases; while the rates of personal taxation being proposed are not exactly huge, by historical or European standards. If that were it, we'd be talking pretty mainstream social democracy. But, as you say, there's every reason to believe it's a Trojan Horse. Unrepentant Marxists will not stop at that.
It's a real shame Miliband didn't run on the 2017 manifesto. I feel he took the flak of greater public spending without actually offering the benefits.
Your worries on Corbyn seem overblown to me. Even if he did want to practice unrepentant Marxism (whatever that means in practical terms) - he'd never get the rest of the Labour party to do it.
No. Barring a landslide - which is very unlikely IMO - Corbyn's majority will consist of moderate Labour MPs. He will not be able to implement an ultra left programme.
Labour MPs are pliant sheep who do what they're told.
Utilities and railways are publicly-owned - at least in part - in a number of countries; rent controls are pretty mainstream, though self-defeating in most cases; while the rates of personal taxation being proposed are not exactly huge, by historical or European standards. If that were it, we'd be talking pretty mainstream social democracy. But, as you say, there's every reason to believe it's a Trojan Horse. Unrepentant Marxists will not stop at that.
It's a real shame Miliband didn't run on the 2017 manifesto. I feel he took the flak of greater public spending without actually offering the benefits.
Your worries on Corbyn seem overblown to me. Even if he did want to practice unrepentant Marxism (whatever that means in practical terms) - he'd never get the rest of the Labour party to do it.
The country and the Labour Party should feel fortunate that the Corbynite majority are not only unwilling to use their numbers to force deselections but either don't have the motivation or organisation to prevail in selections even when there is a vacancy. Were that different, we could be looking at a very different outcome.
I think Corbyn's record has been of respecting the decisions of local parties to choose candidates, even those who are opposed to him.
Forcing candidates onto local parties was, I believe, much more common under New Labour.
Utilities and railways are publicly-owned - at least in part - in a number of countries; rent controls are pretty mainstream, though self-defeating in most cases; while the rates of personal taxation being proposed are not exactly huge, by historical or European standards. If that were it, we'd be talking pretty mainstream social democracy. But, as you say, there's every reason to believe it's a Trojan Horse. Unrepentant Marxists will not stop at that.
It's a real shame Miliband didn't run on the 2017 manifesto. I feel he took the flak of greater public spending without actually offering the benefits.
Your worries on Corbyn seem overblown to me. Even if he did want to practice unrepentant Marxism (whatever that means in practical terms) - he'd never get the rest of the Labour party to do it.
The country and the Labour Party should feel fortunate that the Corbynite majority are not only unwilling to use their numbers to force deselections but either don't have the motivation or organisation to prevail in selections even when there is a vacancy. Were that different, we could be looking at a very different outcome.
Momentum have infected every CLP like a virus, if and when Corbyn wins power they will then devour their host. Momentum have achieved what Kinnock stopped the Militant Tendency achieving in the 1980s
Utilities and railways are publicly-owned - at least in part - in a number of countries; rent controls are pretty mainstream, though self-defeating in most cases; while the rates of personal taxation being proposed are not exactly huge, by historical or European standards. If that were it, we'd be talking pretty mainstream social democracy. But, as you say, there's every reason to believe it's a Trojan Horse. Unrepentant Marxists will not stop at that.
It's a real shame Miliband didn't run on the 2017 manifesto. I feel he took the flak of greater public spending without actually offering the benefits.
Your worries on Corbyn seem overblown to me. Even if he did want to practice unrepentant Marxism (whatever that means in practical terms) - he'd never get the rest of the Labour party to do it.
If he gets in Downing Street then he will be able to do it.
How? He still has to pass legislation. And the vast majority of Labour MPs won't support Marxism. And if it's something not in the manifesto then it will have to get through the House of Lords.
Utilities and railways are publicly-owned - at least in part - in a number of countries; rent controls are pretty mainstream, though self-defeating in most cases; while the rates of personal taxation being proposed are not exactly huge, by historical or European standards. If that were it, we'd be talking pretty mainstream social democracy. But, as you say, there's every reason to believe it's a Trojan Horse. Unrepentant Marxists will not stop at that.
It's a real shame Miliband didn't run on the 2017 manifesto. I feel he took the flak of greater public spending without actually offering the benefits.
Your worries on Corbyn seem overblown to me. Even if he did want to practice unrepentant Marxism (whatever that means in practical terms) - he'd never get the rest of the Labour party to do it.
No. Barring a landslide - which is very unlikely IMO - Corbyn's majority will consist of moderate Labour MPs. He will not be able to implement an ultra left programme.
Labour MPs are pliant sheep who do what they're told.
Not at all - many of them voted against Corbyn on the single market only a few weeks ago. And he has now shifted his own position to the one the rebels were advocating.
This, by a distance, is the most dysfunctional government of my lifetime. The nearest comparison would be the dog days of the Callaghan and Major regimes, but even while each vote in Parliament was uncertain then, the normal business of government continued. Not so now. It isn't just the government's incompetence. Various factors conspire to prevent the current lot being replaced in short order: a recent election that unresolved things rather than resolving them; the Fixed Term Parliament Act; the need to do something about Brexit on a fixed timetable; the lack of a generally acceptable alternative government.
At least in the final Major years there was a clear Blair-led government-in-waiting.
All this as we face the greatest crisis since the War.
Although the rot goes deep.
I spent the weekend with someone whose family hasn't moved house in nearly a thousand years. He told me that he was conflicted...he wants to remain in the Single Market but doesn't see any other way to achieve that but to vote for Corbyn.
He is resigned to the last 10 years of his life being fairly miserable.
He is unlikely to need to vote for Corbyn. Indeed, he is unlikely to get a vote at all. Britain's exit agreement will almost certainly be sorted one way or another before 2022.
As an aside, a family that's lived through the civil wars of Stephen, the Yorkists and Lancastrians, and of the parliamentarians and royalists; which has survived revolts of barons, of peasants and of Jacobites; which has endured any number of wars, famines and recessions; which has seen and outlasted the social and economic changes arising from the decline of feudalism, the Reformation, the rise and fall of empire, the agricultural, industrial and information revolutions, the growth of democracy and of the high-spending state - such a family really shouldn't get too het up about what in the large scale of things is a transient administrative arrangement.
(Of course, *all* ethnically English families will have lived through the same things over the last 900 years; yours is only unusual in being able to document its having done so).
just to clarify: a friend, not my family - we can only trace back the main line to the 16C and through the female line to Muhammed
Utilities and railways are publicly-owned - at least in part - in a number of countries; rent controls are pretty mainstream, though self-defeating in most cases; while the rates of personal taxation being proposed are not exactly huge, by historical or European standards. If that were it, we'd be talking pretty mainstream social democracy. But, as you say, there's every reason to believe it's a Trojan Horse. Unrepentant Marxists will not stop at that.
It's a real shame Miliband didn't run on the 2017 manifesto. I feel he took the flak of greater public spending without actually offering the benefits.
Your worries on Corbyn seem overblown to me. Even if he did want to practice unrepentant Marxism (whatever that means in practical terms) - he'd never get the rest of the Labour party to do it.
No. Barring a landslide - which is very unlikely IMO - Corbyn's majority will consist of moderate Labour MPs. He will not be able to implement an ultra left programme.
Labour MPs are pliant sheep who do what they're told.
These would be the same MPs who voted overwhelmingly to get rid of him?
In a weird way a Corbyn PM is more vulnerable than a Corbyn Leader of Opposition.
Utilities and railways are publicly-owned - at least in part - in a number of countries; rent controls are pretty mainstream, though self-defeating in most cases; while the rates of personal taxation being proposed are not exactly huge, by historical or European standards. If that were it, we'd be talking pretty mainstream social democracy. But, as you say, there's every reason to believe it's a Trojan Horse. Unrepentant Marxists will not stop at that.
It's a real shame Miliband didn't run on the 2017 manifesto. I feel he took the flak of greater public spending without actually offering the benefits.
Your worries on Corbyn seem overblown to me. Even if he did want to practice unrepentant Marxism (whatever that means in practical terms) - he'd never get the rest of the Labour party to do it.
No. Barring a landslide - which is very unlikely IMO - Corbyn's majority will consist of moderate Labour MPs. He will not be able to implement an ultra left programme.
Labour MPs are pliant sheep who do what they're told.
These would be the same MPs who voted overwhelmingly to get rid of him?
In a weird way a Corbyn PM is more vulnerable than a Corbyn Leader of Opposition.
How will Corbyn and McD and Abbot cope with the economic crisis that they might inherit post-hard-brexit?
Utilities and railways are publicly-owned - at least in part - in a number of countries; rent controls are pretty mainstream, though self-defeating in most cases; while the rates of personal taxation being proposed are not exactly huge, by historical or European standards. If that were it, we'd be talking pretty mainstream social democracy. But, as you say, there's every reason to believe it's a Trojan Horse. Unrepentant Marxists will not stop at that.
It's a real shame Miliband didn't run on the 2017 manifesto. I feel he took the flak of greater public spending without actually offering the benefits.
Your worries on Corbyn seem overblown to me. Even if he did want to practice unrepentant Marxism (whatever that means in practical terms) - he'd never get the rest of the Labour party to do it.
No. Barring a landslide - which is very unlikely IMO - Corbyn's majority will consist of moderate Labour MPs. He will not be able to implement an ultra left programme.
You really believe they will have the cojones to vote down a Labour government proposal?
Your estimate has a number of problems. The main one is it looks at how much free care homes would cost - which is not what Labour were promising. Not everyone in a care home is at the end of their life.
The Dilnot proposal recommended that people make a contribution to their living costs. That seems perfectly reasonable to me given they would have had those living costs anyway.
Make your own estimates if you like, in a way it's admirable and I agree with you, but it would be wise to at least look at what other people are estimating and wondering why you are so far out.
Labour promised "free end of life care". If you tell me what that means, I'll work out an estimate.
I naturally thought it meant that when you enter a care home with a disease like Alzheimers or Parkinsons, it meant that your care was free. Does it mean that?
I spent 6 years of my recent life visiting care homes to see my mother die of Parkinson's. (I paid the care home fees myself, and I paid them uncomplainingly.)
Do explain how much of this would be covered by 'free end of life care' ? The full 6 years. The last year. How are you going to determine when the care becomes free, and when it isn't? When does 'end of life' begin?
Please note that the 3 billion pounds is not just for free end of life care. It covers:: "Our service will require an additional £3 billion of public funds every year, enough to place a maximum limit on lifetime personal contributions to care costs, raise the asset threshold below which people are entitled to state support, and provide free end of life care. "
I am still -- posts after YDoethur correctly said the numbers in the Labour manifesto are dishonest -- trying to get a Labour supporter to explain what 'free end of life care' actually means.
Until we know what it means, then it is meaningless to try & cost it.
Which is the point YDoethur was trying to make. The numbers are content-free.
1.6 million cubic metres of concrete, 52,000 tonnes of steel 47 sq km (18 sq miles), including runways. 45 million capacity rising to 100 million.
Cost £9.1 Bn.
Amazing
Democracy is expensive, no doubt why the Chinese leadership consider it so silly.
In the UK you could whack on several billions onto that for planning, legal compensation, environmental, and health and safety regulation, and social and employment standards.
But how else would infrastructure project managers make a living?
This, by a distance, is the most dysfunctional government of my lifetime. The nearest comparison would be the dog days of the Callaghan and Major regimes, but even while each vote in Parliament was uncertain then, the normal business of government continued. Not so now. It isn't just the government's incompetence. Various factors conspire to prevent the current lot being replaced in short order: a recent election that unresolved things rather than resolving them; the Fixed Term Parliament Act; the need to do something about Brexit on a fixed timetable; the lack of a generally acceptable alternative government.
At least in the final Major years there was a clear Blair-led government-in-waiting.
All this as we face the greatest crisis since the War.
Although the rot goes deep.
I spent the weekend with someone whose family hasn't moved house in nearly a thousand years. He told me that he was conflicted...he wants to remain in the Single Market but doesn't see any other way to achieve that but to vote for Corbyn.
He is resigned to the last 10 years of his life being fairly miserable.
He is unlikely to need to vote for Corbyn. Indeed, he is unlikely to get a vote at all. Britain's exit agreement will almost certainly be sorted one way or another before 2022.
As an aside, a family that's lived through the civil wars of Stephen, the Yorkists and Lancastrians, and of the parliamentarians and royalists; which has survived revolts of barons, of peasants and of Jacobites; which has endured any number of wars, famines and recessions; which has seen and outlasted the social and economic changes arising from the decline of feudalism, the Reformation, the rise and fall of empire, the agricultural, industrial and information revolutions, the growth of democracy and of the high-spending state - such a family really shouldn't get too het up about what in the large scale of things is a transient administrative arrangement.
(Of course, *all* ethnically English families will have lived through the same things over the last 900 years; yours is only unusual in being able to document its having done so).
just to clarify: a friend, not my family - we can only trace back the main line to the 16C and through the female line to Muhammed
Most of our worries are pretty small beer.
I agree - that's why I tend to be plegmatic about things
Has anybody on here ever changed their mind as result of something they've read on here?
In amongst the banal tit for tatting I've read some great stuff, but I must admit most of what I read confirms my original view.
I've already posted about how this site greatly influenced my expectations of the result of the last general election, despite what I was seeing with my own eyes.
Your estimate has a number of problems. The main one is it looks at how much free care homes would cost - which is not what Labour were promising. Not everyone in a care home is at the end of their life.
The Dilnot proposal recommended that people make a contribution to their living costs. That seems perfectly reasonable to me given they would have had those living costs anyway.
Make your own estimates if you like, in a way it's admirable and I agree with you, but it would be wise to at least look at what other people are estimating and wondering why you are so far out.
Labour promised "free end of life care". If you tell me what that means, I'll work out an estimate.
I naturally thought it meant that when you enter a care home with a disease like Alzheimers or Parkinsons, it meant that your care was free. Does it mean that?
I spent 6 years of my recent life visiting care homes to see my mother die of Parkinson's. (I paid the care home fees myself, and I paid them uncomplainingly.)
Do explain how much of this would be covered by 'free end of life care' ? The full 6 years. The last year. How are you going to determine when the care becomes free, and when it isn't? When does 'end of life' begin?
Please note that the 3 billion pounds is not just for free end of life care. It covers:: "Our service will require an additional £3 billion of public funds every year, enough to place a maximum limit on lifetime personal contributions to care costs, raise the asset threshold below which people are entitled to state support, and provide free end of life care. "
I am still -- posts after YDoethur correctly said the numbers in the Labour manifesto are dishonest -- trying to get a Labour supporter to explain what 'free end of life care' actually means.
Until we know what it means, then it is meaningless to try & cost it.
Which is the point YDoethur was trying to make. The numbers are content-free.
If only the Chancellor had had such terrier-like tenacity in getting to the heart of Labour's Manifesto numbers.....
Utilities and railways are publicly-owned - at least in part - in a number of countries; rent controls are pretty mainstream, though self-defeating in most cases; while the rates of personal taxation being proposed are not exactly huge, by historical or European standards. If that were it, we'd be talking pretty mainstream social democracy. But, as you say, there's every reason to believe it's a Trojan Horse. Unrepentant Marxists will not stop at that.
It's a real shame Miliband didn't run on the 2017 manifesto. I feel he took the flak of greater public spending without actually offering the benefits.
Your worries on Corbyn seem overblown to me. Even if he did want to practice unrepentant Marxism (whatever that means in practical terms) - he'd never get the rest of the Labour party to do it.
No. Barring a landslide - which is very unlikely IMO - Corbyn's majority will consist of moderate Labour MPs. He will not be able to implement an ultra left programme.
Labour MPs are pliant sheep who do what they're told.
These would be the same MPs who voted overwhelmingly to get rid of him?
In a weird way a Corbyn PM is more vulnerable than a Corbyn Leader of Opposition.
If Momentum feels 'centrist' MPs are threatening the mandate of the Dear Leader then the show trials and mass deselections will start shortly after with the full backing of PM Corbyn and Comrade McDonnell
Utilities and railways are publicly-owned - at least in part - in a number of countries; rent controls are pretty mainstream, though self-defeating in most cases; while the rates of personal taxation being proposed are not exactly huge, by historical or European standards. If that were it, we'd be talking pretty mainstream social democracy. But, as you say, there's every reason to believe it's a Trojan Horse. Unrepentant Marxists will not stop at that.
It's a real shame Miliband didn't run on the 2017 manifesto. I feel he took the flak of greater public spending without actually offering the benefits.
Your worries on Corbyn seem overblown to me. Even if he did want to practice unrepentant Marxism (whatever that means in practical terms) - he'd never get the rest of the Labour party to do it.
No. Barring a landslide - which is very unlikely IMO - Corbyn's majority will consist of moderate Labour MPs. He will not be able to implement an ultra left programme.
Labour MPs are pliant sheep who do what they're told.
These would be the same MPs who voted overwhelmingly to get rid of him?
In a weird way a Corbyn PM is more vulnerable than a Corbyn Leader of Opposition.
If Momentum feels 'centrist' MPs are threatening the mandate of the Dear Leader then the show trials and mass deselections will start shortly after with the full backing of PM Corbyn and Comrade McDonnell
That, of course, is the quickest way to create a new political party.
Utilities and railways are publicly-owned - at least in part - in a number of countries; rent controls are pretty mainstream, though self-defeating in most cases; while the rates of personal taxation being proposed are not exactly huge, by historical or European standards. If that were it, we'd be talking pretty mainstream social democracy. But, as you say, there's every reason to believe it's a Trojan Horse. Unrepentant Marxists will not stop at that.
It's a real shame Miliband didn't run on the 2017 manifesto. I feel he took the flak of greater public spending without actually offering the benefits.
Your worries on Corbyn seem overblown to me. Even if he did want to practice unrepentant Marxism (whatever that means in practical terms) - he'd never get the rest of the Labour party to do it.
The country and the Labour Party should feel fortunate that the Corbynite majority are not only unwilling to use their numbers to force deselections but either don't have the motivation or organisation to prevail in selections even when there is a vacancy. Were that different, we could be looking at a very different outcome.
Momentum have infected every CLP like a virus, if and when Corbyn wins power they will then devour their host. Momentum have achieved what Kinnock stopped the Militant Tendency achieving in the 1980s
The Tories need to make a more serious analysis of the forces that have led to Corbyn's rise if they are to counter them. Shrill accusations of extremism did not work in June.
Utilities and railways are publicly-owned - at least in part - in a number of countries; rent controls are pretty mainstream, though self-defeating in most cases; while the rates of personal taxation being proposed are not exactly huge, by historical or European standards. If that were it, we'd be talking pretty mainstream social democracy. But, as you say, there's every reason to believe it's a Trojan Horse. Unrepentant Marxists will not stop at that.
It's a real shame Miliband didn't run on the 2017 manifesto. I feel he took the flak of greater public spending without actually offering the benefits.
Your worries on Corbyn seem overblown to me. Even if he did want to practice unrepentant Marxism (whatever that means in practical terms) - he'd never get the rest of the Labour party to do it.
No. Barring a landslide - which is very unlikely IMO - Corbyn's majority will consist of moderate Labour MPs. He will not be able to implement an ultra left programme.
Labour MPs are pliant sheep who do what they're told.
These would be the same MPs who voted overwhelmingly to get rid of him?
In a weird way a Corbyn PM is more vulnerable than a Corbyn Leader of Opposition.
If Momentum feels 'centrist' MPs are threatening the mandate of the Dear Leader then the show trials and mass deselections will start shortly after with the full backing of PM Corbyn and Comrade McDonnell
That, of course, is the quickest way to create a new political party.
If Corbyn does win the next general election or stays on post defeat it may force a Macron style breakaway party yes, probably led by Chuka Umunna
Utilities and railways are publicly-owned - at least in part - in a number of countries; rent controls are pretty mainstream, though self-defeating in most cases; while the rates of personal taxation being proposed are not exactly huge, by historical or European standards. If that were it, we'd be talking pretty mainstream social democracy. But, as you say, there's every reason to believe it's a Trojan Horse. Unrepentant Marxists will not stop at that.
It's a real shame Miliband didn't run on the 2017 manifesto. I feel he took the flak of greater public spending without actually offering the benefits.
Your worries on Corbyn seem overblown to me. Even if he did want to practice unrepentant Marxism (whatever that means in practical terms) - he'd never get the rest of the Labour party to do it.
No. Barring a landslide - which is very unlikely IMO - Corbyn's majority will consist of moderate Labour MPs. He will not be able to implement an ultra left programme.
Labour MPs are pliant sheep who do what they're told.
These would be the same MPs who voted overwhelmingly to get rid of him?
In a weird way a Corbyn PM is more vulnerable than a Corbyn Leader of Opposition.
How will Corbyn and McD and Abbot cope with the economic crisis that they might inherit post-hard-brexit?
Exactly the same way the current government would, I expect - badly.
Labour promised "free end of life care". If you tell me what that means, I'll work out an estimate.
I naturally thought it meant that when you enter a care home with a disease like Alzheimers or Parkinsons, it meant that your care was free. Does it mean that?
I spent 6 years of my recent life visiting care homes to see my mother die of Parkinson's. (I paid the care home fees myself, and I paid them uncomplainingly.)
Do explain how much of this would be covered by 'free end of life care' ? The full 6 years. The last year. How are you going to determine when the care becomes free, and when it isn't? When does 'end of life' begin?
Please note that the 3 billion pounds is not just for free end of life care. It covers:: "Our service will require an additional £3 billion of public funds every year, enough to place a maximum limit on lifetime personal contributions to care costs, raise the asset threshold below which people are entitled to state support, and provide free end of life care. "
I am still -- posts after YDoethur correctly said the numbers in the Labour manifesto are dishonest -- trying to get a Labour supporter to explain what 'free end of life care' actually means.
Until we know what it means, then it is meaningless to try & cost it.
Which is the point YDoethur was trying to make. The numbers are content-free.
I was the one who said originally you couldn't cost that proposal because there wasn't enough detail - it was clear to me that Labour had promised 3bn, and would adjust the details of the proposal to fit that envelope.
You were the one claiming you could cost it - and then producing figures based on all care homes becoming free and it costing 18bn/year. I noted that 3bn/year was roughly what the Dilnot Report asked for - so it's clearly not a meaningless amount of money.
Generally I think, end of life care means roughly the last 12 months/could be less if someone deteriorates quickly.
Has anybody on here ever changed their mind as result of something they've read on here?
In amongst the banal tit for tatting I've read some great stuff, but I must admit most of what I read confirms my original view.
On small stuff, yes. On big questions, do we *ever* change our minds as a result of a single thing? Usually, it will be a large weight of evidence that pushes against a previously held view and even then, there's rarely a tipping-point but instead a grey area of Not Really Sure.
Utilities and railways are publicly-owned - at least in part - in a number of countries; rent controls are pretty mainstream, though self-defeating in most cases; while the rates of personal taxation being proposed are not exactly huge, by historical or European standards. If that were it, we'd be talking pretty mainstream social democracy. But, as you say, there's every reason to believe it's a Trojan Horse. Unrepentant Marxists will not stop at that.
It's a real shame Miliband didn't run on the 2017 manifesto. I feel he took the flak of greater public spending without actually offering the benefits.
Your worries on Corbyn seem overblown to me. Even if he did want to practice unrepentant Marxism (whatever that means in practical terms) - he'd never get the rest of the Labour party to do it.
If he gets in Downing Street then he will be able to do it.
How? He still has to pass legislation. And the vast majority of Labour MPs won't support Marxism. And if it's something not in the manifesto then it will have to get through the House of Lords.
Agreed - the important thing will be what's in the manifesto.
Utilities and railways are publicly-owned - at least in part - in a number of countries; rent controls are pretty mainstream, though self-defeating in most cases; while the rates of personal taxation being proposed are not exactly huge, by historical or European standards. If that were it, we'd be talking pretty mainstream social democracy. But, as you say, there's every reason to believe it's a Trojan Horse. Unrepentant Marxists will not stop at that.
It's a real shame Miliband didn't run on the 2017 manifesto. I feel he took the flak of greater public spending without actually offering the benefits.
Your worries on Corbyn seem overblown to me. Even if he did want to practice unrepentant Marxism (whatever that means in practical terms) - he'd never get the rest of the Labour party to do it.
No. Barring a landslide - which is very unlikely IMO - Corbyn's majority will consist of moderate Labour MPs. He will not be able to implement an ultra left programme.
Labour MPs are pliant sheep who do what they're told.
These would be the same MPs who voted overwhelmingly to get rid of him?
In a weird way a Corbyn PM is more vulnerable than a Corbyn Leader of Opposition.
If Momentum feels 'centrist' MPs are threatening the mandate of the Dear Leader then the show trials and mass deselections will start shortly after with the full backing of PM Corbyn and Comrade McDonnell
That, of course, is the quickest way to create a new political party.
And the Corbynistas seem to recognise this - they took care to ensure that changes to the selection system for parliamentary candidates were excluded from the conference agenda last month. The signs at the moment are that they think they are on the verge of power and do not want - or need - the threat of reselections to throw a spanner in the works.
1.6 million cubic metres of concrete, 52,000 tonnes of steel 47 sq km (18 sq miles), including runways. 45 million capacity rising to 100 million.
Cost £9.1 Bn.
Amazing
Democracy is expensive, no doubt why the Chinese leadership consider it so silly.
In the UK you could whack on several billions onto that for planning, legal compensation, environmental, and health and safety regulation, and social and employment standards.
But how else would infrastructure project managers make a living?
I should add that in the UK project and programme management techniques are more sophisticated, however!
In China, for example, throwing men and money at fixing a problem generally isn't an issue, and they are (I'm sorry to say) willing to compromise on safety. In parts of the Middle-East they certainly value build way more than design, and get impatient with planning/ set-up.
We probably spend a lot more money on "social" endeavours for projects in the UK, but also are more resource efficient across the programme lifecycle.
Labour promised "free end of life care". If you tell me what that means, I'll work out an estimate.
I naturally thought it meant that when you enter a care home with a disease like Alzheimers or Parkinsons, it meant that your care was free. Does it mean that?
I spent 6 years of my recent life visiting care homes to see my mother die of Parkinson's. (I paid the care home fees myself, and I paid them uncomplainingly.)
Do explain how much of this would be covered by 'free end of life care' ? The full 6 years. The last year. How are you going to determine when the care becomes free, and when it isn't? When does 'end of life' begin?
Please note that the 3 billion pounds is not just for free end of life care. It covers:: "Our service will require an additional £3 billion of public funds every year, enough to place a maximum limit on lifetime personal contributions to care costs, raise the asset threshold below which people are entitled to state support, and provide free end of life care. "
I am still -- posts after YDoethur correctly said the numbers in the Labour manifesto are dishonest -- trying to get a Labour supporter to explain what 'free end of life care' actually means.
Until we know what it means, then it is meaningless to try & cost it.
Which is the point YDoethur was trying to make. The numbers are content-free.
I was the one who said originally you couldn't cost that proposal because there wasn't enough detail - it was clear to me that Labour had promised 3bn, and would adjust the details of the proposal to fit that envelope.
You were the one claiming you could cost it - and then producing figures based on all care homes becoming free and it costing 18bn/year. I noted that 3bn/year was roughly what the Dilnot Report asked for - so it's clearly not a meaningless amount of money.
Generally I think, end of life care means roughly the last 12 months/could be less if someone deteriorates quickly.
My understanding of 'free end of life care' is that when you entered a care home with dementia or Alzheimers or Parkinson's, the Government would pick up the costs.
That is great, a fine & compassionate policy. It makes dementia sufferers equal with cancer sufferers. It will cost more than 3 billion pounds.
Your plan is to examine every dementia sufferer every, what 6 months, to see if they are in "the last 12 months of their life" (your words). And then the Govt will pay the care home fees.
It would be hard to come up with a stupider policy. Or a more cruel one.
Has anybody on here ever changed their mind as result of something they've read on here?
In amongst the banal tit for tatting I've read some great stuff, but I must admit most of what I read confirms my original view.
I've already posted about how this site greatly influenced my expectations of the result of the last general election, despite what I was seeing with my own eyes.
I was very stressed for months from just before the manifesto launch (the signs were there) to.. err.. just after the Queen's Speech.
Utilities and railways are publicly-owned - at least in part - in a number of countries; rent controls are pretty mainstream, though self-defeating in most cases; while the rates of personal taxation being proposed are not exactly huge, by historical or European standards. If that were it, we'd be talking pretty mainstream social democracy. But, as you say, there's every reason to believe it's a Trojan Horse. Unrepentant Marxists will not stop at that.
It's a real shame Miliband didn't run on the 2017 manifesto. I feel he took the flak of greater public spending without actually offering the benefits.
Your worries on Corbyn seem overblown to me. Even if he did want to practice unrepentant Marxism (whatever that means in practical terms) - he'd never get the rest of the Labour party to do it.
The country and the Labour Party should feel fortunate that the Corbynite majority are not only unwilling to use their numbers to force deselections but either don't have the motivation or organisation to prevail in selections even when there is a vacancy. Were that different, we could be looking at a very different outcome.
Momentum have infected every CLP like a virus, if and when Corbyn wins power they will then devour their host. Momentum have achieved what Kinnock stopped the Militant Tendency achieving in the 1980s
Out of interest, what's your basis for this? As far as I am aware, it is certainly the case in some CLPs, but not in most. The ones where it seems to be the rule is those where membership participation is low - in other words, usually where there is no sitting Labour MP and the marginal. Where Momentum is strong is in online one member one vote scenarios. That's where Jon Lansman's database comes into play.
Utilities and railways are publicly-owned - at least in part - in a number of countries; rent controls are pretty mainstream, though self-defeating in most cases; while the rates of personal taxation being proposed are not exactly huge, by historical or European standards. If that were it, we'd be talking pretty mainstream social democracy. But, as you say, there's every reason to believe it's a Trojan Horse. Unrepentant Marxists will not stop at that.
It's a real shame Miliband didn't run on the 2017 manifesto. I feel he took the flak of greater public spending without actually offering the benefits.
Your worries on Corbyn seem overblown to me. Even if he did want to practice unrepentant Marxism (whatever that means in practical terms) - he'd never get the rest of the Labour party to do it.
No. Barring a landslide - which is very unlikely IMO - Corbyn's majority will consist of moderate Labour MPs. He will not be able to implement an ultra left programme.
Labour MPs are pliant sheep who do what they're told.
These would be the same MPs who voted overwhelmingly to get rid of him?
In a weird way a Corbyn PM is more vulnerable than a Corbyn Leader of Opposition.
That was then. He's a winner, now, and they didn't carry out any of their threats to force him out or form a new party.
Has anybody on here ever changed their mind as result of something they've read on here?
In amongst the banal tit for tatting I've read some great stuff, but I must admit most of what I read confirms my original view.
I used to think Radiohead was a boring, pretentious, self-indulgent band but now having been threatened with a ban and fine I realise how brilliant they are.
If Momentum feels 'centrist' MPs are threatening the mandate of the Dear Leader then the show trials and mass deselections will start shortly after with the full backing of PM Corbyn and Comrade McDonnell
I just don't think Momentum are the evil bogey group you think they are. Other than campaigning for Corbyn - I don't see that they have done that much.
Those centrist MPs tried a coup against Corbyn not so long ago but there have there been any deselections?
At least in the final Major years there was a clear Blair-led government-in-waiting.
All this as we face the greatest crisis since the War.
Although the rot goes deep.
I spent the weekend with someone whose family hasn't moved house in nearly a thousand years. He told me that he was conflicted...he wants to remain in the Single Market but doesn't see any other way to achieve that but to vote for Corbyn.
He is resigned to the last 10 years of his life being fairly miserable.
He is unlikely to need to vote for Corbyn. Indeed, he is unlikely to get a vote at all. Britain's exit agreement will almost certainly be sorted one way or another before 2022.
As an aside, a family that's lived through the civil wars of Stephen, the Yorkists and Lancastrians, and of the parliamentarians and royalists; which has survived revolts of barons, of peasants and of Jacobites; which has endured any number of wars, famines and recessions; which has seen and outlasted the social and economic changes arising from the decline of feudalism, the Reformation, the rise and fall of empire, the agricultural, industrial and information revolutions, the growth of democracy and of the high-spending state - such a family really shouldn't get too het up about what in the large scale of things is a transient administrative arrangement.
(Of course, *all* ethnically English families will have lived through the same things over the last 900 years; yours is only unusual in being able to document its having done so).
just to clarify: a friend, not my family - we can only trace back the main line to the 16C and through the female line to Muhammed
Most of our worries are pretty small beer.
I agree - that's why I tend to be plegmatic about things
A wise approach - unlike quite a few on here who seem to be seeking ways to squirrel their wealth offshore so that the devil-incarnate cannot get his hands on it when he becomes PM! And I bet everyone of those would call themselves a 'country-before-self patriot'.
This, by a distance, is the most dysfunctional government of my lifetime. The nearest comparison would be the dog days of the Callaghan and Major regimes, but even while each vote in Parliament was uncertain then, the government.
All this as we face the greatest crisis since the War.
You much detail.
Social followed.
Official Labour policies are Socialist Democratic in the main. I have a concern about Jeremy Corbyn's lack of discipline. After the election he seemed to dismiss official positions as things that were said to get elected and of no importance. I also don't trust John McDonnell.
Corrected it for you.
I unpleasant and reactionary it might be.
Perhaps it's a matter of opinion.
I consider nationalising transport, energy and postal services to be socialist, rent and price controls, as well as large rises in corporation and personal taxation, and the scrapping of trade union laws, to be socialist.
Could it be even worse?
Sure. I don't believe they intend to stop there for a second; it's a Trojan horse to get into Government.
Utilities and railways are publicly-owned - at least in part - in a number of countries; rent controls are pretty mainstream, though self-defeating in most cases; while the rates of personal taxation being proposed are not exactly huge, by historical or European standards. If that were it, we'd be talking pretty mainstream social democracy. But, as you say, there's every reason to believe it's a Trojan Horse. Unrepentant Marxists will not stop at that.
Sorry, i consider that socialist. We haven't had a UK government seeking to take substantive parts of the UK economy into public ownership since the 1940s and, combined with the trade union law repeals, its a return to beer and sandwiches at number 10 and a country run for producer interests demanding large pay settlement and for outdated working practices, and politically in hock to union barons.
Very scary.
Labour is moving to one member one vote. That will certainly increase the power of the left, but it will substantially reduce the influence of the unions. Any increased rights that unions get will be from conviction, not necessity. I doubt Corbyn drinks much beer or eats many sandwiches!
The manifesto said the £3 billion would allow a cap to be placed on individual payments. I suspect this is the point you have both missed, and your numbers are higher because you are costing a more generous service than the one in the manifesto. To stretch your analogy, you have dreamt that Labour promised a Ferrari and are now complaining they've only budgeted for a Ford Focus RS.
None of which changes the basic point which is that Labour's manifesto was costed; the Conservative one was not.
I have just checked the manifesto, and the 3 billion pound figure includes " free end of life care." See page 72 of the Manifesto, where it is clear that the 3 billion also covers a bunch of other things as well.
Now of course, "free end of life care" might just be the last 5 minutes of your life. Or the last minute.
It is not unreasonable to think it means that those ending their life in care homes would have their care home bills covered.
If it doesn't mean this, please do tell us what "free end of life care" actually means.
There is already “free end of life care” on the NHS under some circumstances; my late father had it. He was admitted to hospital in late 2015 and found to have terminal cancer with a prognosis of less than six months. He was released to a nursing home which the NHS paid for as “continuing medical care”. All we as the family had to do was choose the nursing home.
Another example of the chaos and lottery of existing system. If the patient has dementia rather than cancer, then almost certainly no funding from NHS.
AIUI from what we were told at the time, the key factors were the prognosis being death in less than six months and the patient being so ill that 24-hr nursing care was required.
If Momentum feels 'centrist' MPs are threatening the mandate of the Dear Leader then the show trials and mass deselections will start shortly after with the full backing of PM Corbyn and Comrade McDonnell
I just don't think Momentum are the evil bogey group you think they are. Other than campaigning for Corbyn - I don't see that they have done that much.
Those centrist MPs tried a coup against Corbyn not so long ago but there have there been any deselections?
Momentum is full of Trotskyites and Marxists like Lansman
They will keep centrist MPs if it helps them get into power, once in power they can be deselected at will
My understanding of 'free end of life care' is that when you entered a care home with dementia or Alzheimers or Parkinson's, the Government would pick up the costs.
That is great, a fine & compassionate policy. It makes dementia sufferers equal with cancer sufferers. It will cost more than 3 billion pounds.
Your plan is to examine every dementia sufferer every, what 6 months, to see if they are in "the last 12 months of their life" (your words). And then the Govt will pay the care home fees.
It would be hard to come up with a stupider policy. Or a more cruel one.
Okay last post on this from me.
I'm merely telling you what was in the Labour manifesto because you had a very different idea of what Labour were promising.
I'd be up for a policy that treats dementia sufferers equally or more equally with cancer sufferers. Sounds good to me.
I do think though that for people in care homes they should make a contribution to living costs if they can afford it (I think Dilnot estimates 7-10k/year) as they would be paying that money anyway if they are healthy.
The manifesto said the £3 billion would allow a cap to be placed on individual payments. I suspect this is the point you have both missed, and your numbers are higher because you are costing a more generous service than the one in the manifesto. To stretch your analogy, you have dreamt that Labour promised a Ferrari and are now complaining they've only budgeted for a Ford Focus RS.
None of which changes the basic point which is that Labour's manifesto was costed; the Conservative one was not.
I have just checked the manifesto, and the 3 billion pound figure includes " free end of life care." See page 72 of the Manifesto, where it is clear that the 3 billion also covers a bunch of other things as well.
Now of course, "free end of life care" might just be the last 5 minutes of your life. Or the last minute.
It is not unreasonable to think it means that those ending their life in care homes would have their care home bills covered.
If it doesn't mean this, please do tell us what "free end of life care" actually means.
There is already “free end of life care” on the NHS under some circumstances; my late father had it. He was admitted to hospital in late 2015 and found to have terminal cancer with a prognosis of less than six months. He was released to a nursing home which the NHS paid for as “continuing medical care”. All we as the family had to do was choose the nursing home.
Another example of the chaos and lottery of existing system. If the patient has dementia rather than cancer, then almost certainly no funding from NHS.
AIUI from what we were told at the time, the key factors were the prognosis being death in less than six months and the patient being so ill that 24-hr nursing care was required.
Cancer patients do have free end of life care, but dementia patients don't.
It is clearly inequitable.
The problem is dementia patients can live for 5-10 years needing full-time care, so it is unfortunately very expensive.
This, by a distance, is the most dysfunctional government of my lifetime. The nearest comparison would be the dog days of the Callaghan and Major regimes, but even while each vote in Parliament was uncertain then, the government.
All this as we face the greatest crisis since the War.
You much detail.
Social followed.
Official Labour policies are Socialist Democratic in the main. I have a concern about Jeremy Corbyn's lack of discipline. After the election he seemed to dismiss official positions as things that were said to get elected and of no importance. I also don't trust John McDonnell.
Corrected it for you.
I unpleasant and reactionary it might be.
Perhaps it's a matter of opinion.
I consider nationalising transport, energy and postal services to be socialist, rent and price controls, as well as large rises in corporation and personal taxation, and the scrapping of trade union laws, to be socialist.
Could it be even worse?
Sure. I don't believe they intend to stop there for a second; it's a Trojan horse to get into Government.
Utilities and railways are publicly-owned - at least in part - in a number of countries; rent controls are pretty mainstream, though self-defeating in most cases; while the rates of personal taxation being proposed are not exactly huge, by historical or European standards. If that were it, we'd be talking pretty mainstream social democracy. But, as you say, there's every reason to believe it's a Trojan Horse. Unrepentant Marxists will not stop at that.
Sorry, i consider that socialist. We haven't had a UK government seeking to take substantive parts of the UK economy into public ownership since the 1940s and, combined with the trade union law repeals, its a return to beer and sandwiches at number 10 and a country run for producer interests demanding large pay settlement and for outdated working practices, and politically in hock to union barons.
Very scary.
Labour is moving to one member one vote. That will certainly increase the power of the left, but it will substantially reduce the influence of the unions. Any increased rights that unions get will be from conviction, not necessity. I doubt Corbyn drinks much beer or eats many sandwiches!
Quinoa and ethically-sourced carrot juice at No.10?
Utilities and railways are publicly-owned - at least in part - in a number of countries; rent controls are pretty mainstream, though self-defeating in most cases; while the rates of personal taxation being proposed are not exactly huge, by historical or European standards. If that were it, we'd be talking pretty mainstream social democracy. But, as you say, there's every reason to believe it's a Trojan Horse. Unrepentant Marxists will not stop at that.
It's a real shame Miliband didn't run on the 2017 manifesto. I feel he took the flak of greater public spending without actually offering the benefits.
Your worries on Corbyn seem overblown to me. Even if he did want to practice unrepentant Marxism (whatever that means in practical terms) - he'd never get the rest of the Labour party to do it.
The country and the Labour Party should feel fortunate that the Corbynite majority are not only unwilling to use their numbers to force deselections but either don't have the motivation or organisation to prevail in selections even when there is a vacancy. Were that different, we could be looking at a very different outcome.
Momentum have infected every CLP like a virus, if and when Corbyn wins power they will then devour their host. Momentum have achieved what Kinnock stopped the Militant Tendency achieving in the 1980s
The Tories need to make a more serious analysis of the forces that have led to Corbyn's rise if they are to counter them. Shrill accusations of extremism did not work in June.
Due to the abysmal defensive campaign and the dementia tax
If Momentum feels 'centrist' MPs are threatening the mandate of the Dear Leader then the show trials and mass deselections will start shortly after with the full backing of PM Corbyn and Comrade McDonnell
I just don't think Momentum are the evil bogey group you think they are. Other than campaigning for Corbyn - I don't see that they have done that much.
I think most of them are very naïve, being led by a hardcore who are anything but.
Utilities and railways are publicly-owned - at least in part - in a number of countries; rent controls are pretty mainstream, though self-defeating in most cases; while the rates of personal taxation being proposed are not exactly huge, by historical or European standards. If that were it, we'd be talking pretty mainstream social democracy. But, as you say, there's every reason to believe it's a Trojan Horse. Unrepentant Marxists will not stop at that.
It's a real shame Miliband didn't run on the 2017 manifesto. I feel he took the flak of greater public spending without actually offering the benefits.
Your worries on Corbyn seem overblown to me. Even if he did want to practice unrepentant Marxism (whatever that means in practical terms) - he'd never get the rest of the Labour party to do it.
The country and the Labour Party should feel fortunate that the Corbynite majority are not only unwilling to use their numbers to force deselections but either don't have the motivation or organisation to prevail in selections even when there is a vacancy. Were that different, we could be looking at a very different outcome.
Momentum have infected every CLP like a virus, if and when Corbyn wins power they will then devour their host. Momentum have achieved what Kinnock stopped the Militant Tendency achieving in the 1980s
Out of interest, what's your basis for this? As far as I am aware, it is certainly the case in some CLPs, but not in most. The ones where it seems to be the rule is those where membership participation is low - in other words, usually where there is no sitting Labour MP and the marginal. Where Momentum is strong is in online one member one vote scenarios. That's where Jon Lansman's database comes into play.
Momentum certainly formed much of the groundwork at the last general election and are strong particularly in inner city seats where there are plenty of Labour MPs
If Momentum feels 'centrist' MPs are threatening the mandate of the Dear Leader then the show trials and mass deselections will start shortly after with the full backing of PM Corbyn and Comrade McDonnell
I just don't think Momentum are the evil bogey group you think they are. Other than campaigning for Corbyn - I don't see that they have done that much.
Those centrist MPs tried a coup against Corbyn not so long ago but there have there been any deselections?
Momentum is full of Trotskyites and Marxists like Lansman
They will keep centrist MPs if it helps them get into power, once in power they can be deselected at will
If you kick an MP out of your party, they stay an MP. And they're probably less likely to vote for you. Your scenario would be a surefire way for Labour, having won an election, to lose power.
My understanding of 'free end of life care' is that when you entered a care home with dementia or Alzheimers or Parkinson's, the Government would pick up the costs.
That is great, a fine & compassionate policy. It makes dementia sufferers equal with cancer sufferers. It will cost more than 3 billion pounds.
Your plan is to examine every dementia sufferer every, what 6 months, to see if they are in "the last 12 months of their life" (your words). And then the Govt will pay the care home fees.
It would be hard to come up with a stupider policy. Or a more cruel one.
Okay last post on this from me.
I'm merely telling you what was in the Labour manifesto because you had a very different idea of what Labour were promising.
I'd be up for a policy that treats dementia sufferers equally or more equally with cancer sufferers. Sounds good to me.
I do think though that for people in care homes they should make a contribution to living costs if they can afford it (I think Dilnot estimates 7-10k/year) as they would be paying that money anyway if they are healthy.
Ok, last post from me. I didn't invent the phrase 'free end of life care'
It is in the Labour Manifesto. It is under the section entitled Towards a National Care Service.
If Momentum feels 'centrist' MPs are threatening the mandate of the Dear Leader then the show trials and mass deselections will start shortly after with the full backing of PM Corbyn and Comrade McDonnell
I just don't think Momentum are the evil bogey group you think they are. Other than campaigning for Corbyn - I don't see that they have done that much.
Those centrist MPs tried a coup against Corbyn not so long ago but there have there been any deselections?
Momentum is full of Trotskyites and Marxists like Lansman
They will keep centrist MPs if it helps them get into power, once in power they can be deselected at will
If you kick an MP out of your party, they stay an MP. And they're probably less likely to vote for you. Your scenario would be a surefire way for Labour, having won an election, to lose power.
Momentum want power to achieve socialism not power for its own sake, if any Labour MPs block that they will aim to ensure they are no longer Labour MPs
If Momentum feels 'centrist' MPs are threatening the mandate of the Dear Leader then the show trials and mass deselections will start shortly after with the full backing of PM Corbyn and Comrade McDonnell
I just don't think Momentum are the evil bogey group you think they are. Other than campaigning for Corbyn - I don't see that they have done that much.
I think most of them are very naïve, being led by a hardcore who are anything but.
Momentum is a fascism of the left. We are in a very dangerous situation where a hard left Marxist leader of the opposition who does not believe in parliamentary democracy as we know it (with a leader having the support of his MPs) relies on an extra parliamentary extreme party within a party which encourages a cult of personality of the Leader with a chant and a song to the Great One.
Utilities and railways are publicly-owned - at least in part - in a number of countries; rent controls are pretty mainstream, though self-defeating in most cases; while the rates of personal taxation being proposed are not exactly huge, by historical or European standards. If that were it, we'd be talking pretty mainstream social democracy. But, as you say, there's every reason to believe it's a Trojan Horse. Unrepentant Marxists will not stop at that.
It's a real shame Miliband didn't run on the 2017 manifesto. I feel he took the flak of greater public spending without actually offering the benefits.
Your worries on Corbyn seem overblown to me. Even if he did want to practice unrepentant Marxism (whatever that means in practical terms) - he'd never get the rest of the Labour party to do it.
The country and the Labour Party should feel fortunate that the Corbynite majority are not only unwilling to use their numbers to force deselections but either don't have the motivation or organisation to prevail in selections even when there is a vacancy. Were that different, we could be looking at a very different outcome.
Momentum have infected every CLP like a virus, if and when Corbyn wins power they will then devour their host. Momentum have achieved what Kinnock stopped the Militant Tendency achieving in the 1980s
Why not do it now? What would be the benefit of waiting until 2022 before starting to reshape the PLP?
The country and the Labour Party should feel fortunate that the Corbynite majority are not only unwilling to use their numbers to force deselections but either don't have the motivation or organisation to prevail in selections even when there is a vacancy. Were that different, we could be looking at a very different outcome.
Momentum have infected every CLP like a virus, if and when Corbyn wins power they will then devour their host. Momentum have achieved what Kinnock stopped the Militant Tendency achieving in the 1980.
I've been a member of Momentum since it was set up, so I'm your fully-fledged virus. They did a lot of texting to get me to help diverse MPs in the election, generally in the form of "I'm Ruth, sorry to bother you, but can you help X, we're meeting at Wollaton Tesco on Thursday at 10". There was also a flurry of stuff when there was an internal dispute about organisation (requiring members to join Labour), plus recommendations on how to vote for the NEC. I've never had anything about (de)selections and I don't think they've mobilised for that at all. When my seat of Nottingham North picked a centrist to replace Graham Allen, there was an unsuccessful left-wing candidate, but no attempt that I could see was made to organise for him, and he didn't get it.
Obviously the new members are favourably disposed to people who support Corbyn, but so are many of the older members. I'd expect new candidates to be on average to the left of retirees, but it's a trickle.
This, by a distance, is the most dysfunctional government of my lifetime. The nearest comparison would be the dog days of the Callaghan and Major regimes, but even while each vote in Parliament was uncertain then, the government.
All this as we face the greatest crisis since the War.
You much detail.
Social followed.
Official Labour policies are Socialist Democratic in the main. I have a concern about Jeremy Corbyn's lack of discipline. After the election he seemed to dismiss official positions as things that were said to get elected and of no importance. I also don't trust John McDonnell.
Corrected it for you.
I unpleasant and reactionary it might be.
Perhaps it's a matter of opinion.
I consider nationalising transport, energy and postal services to be socialist, rent and price controls, as well as large rises in corporation and personal taxation, and the scrapping of trade union laws, to be socialist.
Could it be even worse?
Sure. I don't believe they intend to stop there for a second; it's a Trojan horse to get into Government.
Utilities and railways are publicly-owned - at least in part - in a number of countries; rent controls are pretty mainstream, though self-defeating in most cases; while the rates of personal taxation being proposed are not exactly huge, by historical or European standards. If that were it, we'd be talking pretty mainstream social democracy. But, as you say, there's every reason to believe it's a Trojan Horse. Unrepentant Marxists will not stop at that.
Sorry, i consider that socialist. We haven't had a UK government seeking to take substantive parts of the UK economy into public ownership since the 1940s and, combined with the trade union law repeals, its a return to beer and sandwiches at number 10 and a country run for producer interests demanding large pay settlement and for outdated working practices, and politically in hock to union barons.
Very scary.
Not that I disagree with you, but that's factually incorrect. Quite a few major nationalisations didn't happen till the 60s/70s, including British Leyland, British Steel and the National Bus Company. Most of this took place under Wilson though, famously, Heath also extended the reach of nationalisation somewhat.
If Momentum feels 'centrist' MPs are threatening the mandate of the Dear Leader then the show trials and mass deselections will start shortly after with the full backing of PM Corbyn and Comrade McDonnell
I just don't think Momentum are the evil bogey group you think they are. Other than campaigning for Corbyn - I don't see that they have done that much.
Those centrist MPs tried a coup against Corbyn not so long ago but there have there been any deselections?
Momentum is full of Trotskyites and Marxists like Lansman
They will keep centrist MPs if it helps them get into power, once in power they can be deselected at will
If you kick an MP out of your party, they stay an MP. And they're probably less likely to vote for you. Your scenario would be a surefire way for Labour, having won an election, to lose power.
Momentum want power to achieve socialism not power for its own sake, if any Labour MPs block that they will aim to ensure they are no longer Labour MPs
So they will be opposition MPs - and bang goes the majority.
My understanding of 'free end of life care' is that when you entered a care home with dementia or Alzheimers or Parkinson's, the Government would pick up the costs.
That is great, a fine & compassionate policy. It makes dementia sufferers equal with cancer sufferers. It will cost more than 3 billion pounds.
Your plan is to examine every dementia sufferer every, what 6 months, to see if they are in "the last 12 months of their life" (your words). And then the Govt will pay the care home fees.
It would be hard to come up with a stupider policy. Or a more cruel one.
Okay last post on this from me.
I'm merely telling you what was in the Labour manifesto because you had a very different idea of what Labour were promising.
I'd be up for a policy that treats dementia sufferers equally or more equally with cancer sufferers. Sounds good to me.
I do think though that for people in care homes they should make a contribution to living costs if they can afford it (I think Dilnot estimates 7-10k/year) as they would be paying that money anyway if they are healthy.
I'd prefer a fully funded 'end of life' care service whether you have cancer or dementia... but we have to recognise that taxes need to rise to cover those costs. That will no doubt include inheritance tax.
Mr. Observer, indeed, and he'll scrap Trident as soon as possible too.
*sighs*
He might not get the chance, Hard Brexit with a £60 billion drop in tax revenues might see the Tories scrap the replacement for Trident.
Good.
Whilst I would like to see money spent on our conventional forces, I can't help but think whilst France has the nuclear deterrent, so should we.
The US/Russia keep an effective MAD on the world to be perfectly honest, and we aren't part of the Russian hinterland - so will never be invaded in a thousand years by them. The only reason to keep it is for soft diplomatic reasons not actual defence.
Makes the inadequates get over their inferiority complex and lets then imagine England is powerful and important rather than face reality. An expensive willy extension.
If Momentum feels 'centrist' MPs are threatening the mandate of the Dear Leader then the show trials and mass deselections will start shortly after with the full backing of PM Corbyn and Comrade McDonnell
I just don't think Momentum are the evil bogey group you think they are. Other than campaigning for Corbyn - I don't see that they have done that much.
Those centrist MPs tried a coup against Corbyn not so long ago but there have there been any deselections?
Momentum is full of Trotskyites and Marxists like Lansman
They will keep centrist MPs if it helps them get into power, once in power they can be deselected at will
If you kick an MP out of your party, they stay an MP. And they're probably less likely to vote for you. Your scenario would be a surefire way for Labour, having won an election, to lose power.
Momentum want power to achieve socialism not power for its own sake, if any Labour MPs block that they will aim to ensure they are no longer Labour MPs
So they will be opposition MPs - and bang goes the majority.
Corbyn may well have enough MPs with the SNP and the Greens and Plaid for a left-wing government anyway without centrist Labour MPs. Otherwise centrist MPs are unlikely to have a majority either so Corbyn would lead a minority government
The country and the Labour Party should feel fortunate that the Corbynite majority are not only unwilling to use their numbers to force deselections but either don't have the motivation or organisation to prevail in selections even when there is a vacancy. Were that different, we could be looking at a very different outcome.
Momentum have infected every CLP like a virus, if and when Corbyn wins power they will then devour their host. Momentum have achieved what Kinnock stopped the Militant Tendency achieving in the 1980.
I've been a member of Momentum since it was set up, so I'm your fully-fledged virus. They did a lot of texting to get me to help diverse MPs in the election, generally in the form of "I'm Ruth, sorry to bother you, but can you help X, we're meeting at Wollaton Tesco on Thursday at 10". There was also a flurry of stuff when there was an internal dispute about organisation (requiring members to join Labour), plus recommendations on how to vote for the NEC. I've never had anything about (de)selections and I don't think they've mobilised for that at all. When my seat of Nottingham North picked a centrist to replace Graham Allen, there was an unsuccessful left-wing candidate, but no attempt that I could see was made to organise for him, and he didn't get it.
Obviously the new members are favourably disposed to people who support Corbyn, but so are many of the older members. I'd expect new candidates to be on average to the left of retirees, but it's a trickle.
Interesting and helpful post, thanks Nick. (I don't suppose it will help any of the PB tories who see Corbyn and McDonnell as marxist baby-eaters sleep any easier at night but you never know!)
The country and the Labour Party should feel fortunate that the Corbynite majority are not only unwilling to use their numbers to force deselections but either don't have the motivation or organisation to prevail in selections even when there is a vacancy. Were that different, we could be looking at a very different outcome.
Momentum have infected every CLP like a virus, if and when Corbyn wins power they will then devour their host. Momentum have achieved what Kinnock stopped the Militant Tendency achieving in the 1980.
I've been a member of Momentum since it was set up, so I'm your fully-fledged virus. They did a lot of texting to get me to help diverse MPs in the election, generally in the form of "I'm Ruth, sorry to bother you, but can you help X, we're meeting at Wollaton Tesco on Thursday at 10". There was also a flurry of stuff when there was an internal dispute about organisation (requiring members to join Labour), plus recommendations on how to vote for the NEC. I've never had anything about (de)selections and I don't think they've mobilised for that at all. When my seat of Nottingham North picked a centrist to replace Graham Allen, there was an unsuccessful left-wing candidate, but no attempt that I could see was made to organise for him, and he didn't get it.
Obviously the new members are favourably disposed to people who support Corbyn, but so are many of the older members. I'd expect new candidates to be on average to the left of retirees, but it's a trickle.
It is a gradual process which would accelerate in power, don't forget Lansman ran Benn's leadership campaign against Kinnock in 1988, he is in the Militant Tendency tradition
Utilities and railways are publicly-owned - at least in part - in a number of countries; rent controls are pretty mainstream, though self-defeating in most cases; while the rates of personal taxation being proposed are not exactly huge, by historical or European standards. If that were it, we'd be talking pretty mainstream social democracy. But, as you say, there's every reason to believe it's a Trojan Horse. Unrepentant Marxists will not stop at that.
It's a real shame Miliband didn't run on the 2017 manifesto. I feel he took the flak of greater public spending without actually offering the benefits.
Your worries on Corbyn seem overblown to me. Even if he did want to practice unrepentant Marxism (whatever that means in practical terms) - he'd never get the rest of the Labour party to do it.
The country and the Labour Party should feel fortunate that the Corbynite majority are not only unwilling to use their numbers to force deselections but either don't have the motivation or organisation to prevail in selections even when there is a vacancy. Were that different, we could be looking at a very different outcome.
Momentum have infected every CLP like a virus, if and when Corbyn wins power they will then devour their host. Momentum have achieved what Kinnock stopped the Militant Tendency achieving in the 1980s
Why not do it now? What would be the benefit of waiting until 2022 before starting to reshape the PLP?
A popular local centrist MP can be useful to hold a seat and keep a Tory out and to get into power, he can then be replaced once in power of needed
If Momentum feels 'centrist' MPs are threatening the mandate of the Dear Leader then the show trials and mass deselections will start shortly after with the full backing of PM Corbyn and Comrade McDonnell
I just don't think Momentum are the evil bogey group you think they are. Other than campaigning for Corbyn - I don't see that they have done that much.
I think most of them are very naïve, being led by a hardcore who are anything but.
Momentum is a fascism of the left. We are in a very dangerous situation where a hard left Marxist leader of the opposition who does not believe in parliamentary democracy as we know it (with a leader having the support of his MPs) relies on an extra parliamentary extreme party within a party which encourages a cult of personality of the Leader with a chant and a song to the Great One.
That is just the kind of hyperbolic nonsense that fell completely flat with the electorate in June. The Tories will have to offer more than rhetoric if they are to see Corbyn off next time.
1.6 million cubic metres of concrete, 52,000 tonnes of steel 47 sq km (18 sq miles), including runways. 45 million capacity rising to 100 million.
Cost £9.1 Bn.
Amazing
Democracy is expensive, no doubt why the Chinese leadership consider it so silly.
In the UK you could whack on several billions onto that for planning, legal compensation, environmental, and health and safety regulation, and social and employment standards.
Has anybody on here ever changed their mind as result of something they've read on here?
In amongst the banal tit for tatting I've read some great stuff, but I must admit most of what I read confirms my original view.
On small stuff, yes. On big questions, do we *ever* change our minds as a result of a single thing? Usually, it will be a large weight of evidence that pushes against a previously held view and even then, there's rarely a tipping-point but instead a grey area of Not Really Sure.
That's about right. But that's a higher change batting average than in society in general, I think. I've only three times in entire life of political persuasion had a conversation in which the other person said, "I see what you mean - OK, I've changed my mind." Something more like "I'm not convinced but you seem reasonable so I'll give you a try." is more common.
This, by a distance, is the most dysfunctional government of my lifetime. The nearest comparison would be the dog days of the Callaghan and Major regimes, but even while each vote in Parliament was uncertain then, the government.
All this as we face the greatest crisis since the War.
You much detail.
Social followed.
Official Labour policies are Socialist Democratic in the main. I have a concern about Jeremy Corbyn's lack of discipline. After the election he seemed to dismiss official positions as things that were said to get elected and of no importance. I also don't trust John McDonnell.
Corrected it for you.
I unpleasant and reactionary it might be.
Perhaps it's a matter of opinion.
I consider nationalising transport, energy and postal services to be socialist, rent and price controls, as well as large rises in corporation and personal taxation, and the scrapping of trade union laws, to be socialist.
Could it be even worse?
Sure. I don't believe they intend to stop there for a second; it's a Trojan horse to get into Government.
Utilities and railways are publicly-owned - at least in part - in a number of countries; rent controls are pretty mainstream, though self-defeating in most cases; while the rates of personal taxation being proposed are not exactly huge, by historical or European standards. If that were it, we'd be talking pretty mainstream social democracy. But, as you say, there's every reason to believe it's a Trojan Horse. Unrepentant Marxists will not stop at that.
Sorry, i consider that socialist. We haven't had a UK government seeking to take substantive parts of the UK economy into public ownership since the 1940s and, combined with the trade union law repeals, its a return to beer and sandwiches at number 10 and a country run for producer interests demanding large pay settlement and for outdated working practices, and politically in hock to union barons.
Very scary.
Not that I disagree with you, but that's factually incorrect. Quite a few major nationalisations didn't happen till the 60s/70s, including British Leyland, British Steel and the National Bus Company. Most of this took place under Wilson though, famously, Heath also extended the reach of nationalisation somewhat.
And those proved to be a real success of course...
If Momentum feels 'centrist' MPs are threatening the mandate of the Dear Leader then the show trials and mass deselections will start shortly after with the full backing of PM Corbyn and Comrade McDonnell
I just don't think Momentum are the evil bogey group you think they are. Other than campaigning for Corbyn - I don't see that they have done that much.
I think most of them are very naïve, being led by a hardcore who are anything but.
Momentum is a fascism of the left. We are in a very dangerous situation where a hard left Marxist leader of the opposition who does not believe in parliamentary democracy as we know it (with a leader having the support of his MPs) relies on an extra parliamentary extreme party within a party which encourages a cult of personality of the Leader with a chant and a song to the Great One.
That is just the kind of hyperbolic nonsense that fell completely flat with the electorate in June. The Tories will have to offer more than rhetoric if they are to see Corbyn off next time.
They need to attack Corbyn's plans to raise inheritance and income tax especially but if Corbyn wins we will have the most hard left government in our history, Corbyn is left of even Attlee and Wilson, especially on national security and defence and NATO
My understanding of 'free end of life care' is that when you entered a care home with dementia or Alzheimers or Parkinson's, the Government would pick up the costs.
That is great, a fine & compassionate policy. It makes dementia sufferers equal with cancer sufferers. It will cost more than 3 billion pounds.
Your plan is to examine every dementia sufferer every, what 6 months, to see if they are in "the last 12 months of their life" (your words). And then the Govt will pay the care home fees.
It would be hard to come up with a stupider policy. Or a more cruel one.
Okay last post on this from me.
I'm merely telling you what was in the Labour manifesto because you had a very different idea of what Labour were promising.
I'd be up for a policy that treats dementia sufferers equally or more equally with cancer sufferers. Sounds good to me.
I do think though that for people in care homes they should make a contribution to living costs if they can afford it (I think Dilnot estimates 7-10k/year) as they would be paying that money anyway if they are healthy.
I'd prefer a fully funded 'end of life' care service whether you have cancer or dementia... but we have to recognise that taxes need to rise to cover those costs. That will no doubt include inheritance tax.
Inheritance should be forced to be added to a pension pot (As cash) and then taxed/treated in the normal fashion.
My understanding of 'free end of life care' is that when you entered a care home with dementia or Alzheimers or Parkinson's, the Government would pick up the costs.
That is great, a fine & compassionate policy. It makes dementia sufferers equal with cancer sufferers. It will cost more than 3 billion pounds.
Your plan is to examine every dementia sufferer every, what 6 months, to see if they are in "the last 12 months of their life" (your words). And then the Govt will pay the care home fees.
It would be hard to come up with a stupider policy. Or a more cruel one.
Okay last post on this from me.
I'm merely telling you what was in the Labour manifesto because you had a very different idea of what Labour were promising.
I'd be up for a policy that treats dementia sufferers equally or more equally with cancer sufferers. Sounds good to me.
I do think though that for people in care homes they should make a contribution to living costs if they can afford it (I think Dilnot estimates 7-10k/year) as they would be paying that money anyway if they are healthy.
I'd prefer a fully funded 'end of life' care service whether you have cancer or dementia... but we have to recognise that taxes need to rise to cover those costs. That will no doubt include inheritance tax.
Inheritance should be forced to be added to a pension pot (As cash) and then taxed/treated in the normal fashion.
Fat chance of the toffs ever voting to take money from themselves after centuries of piling it up at the expense of the plebs.
This, by a distance, is the most dysfunctional government of my lifetime. The nearest comparison would be the dog days of the Callaghan and Major regimes, but even while each vote in Parliament was uncertain then, the government.
All this as we face the greatest crisis since the War.
Social followed.
Official Labour policies are Socialist Democratic in the main. I have a concern about Jeremy Corbyn's lack of discipline. After the election he seemed to dismiss official positions as things that were said to get elected and of no importance. I also don't trust John McDonnell.
Corrected it for you.
I unpleasant and reactionary it might be.
Perhaps it's a matter of opinion.
rent and price controls, as well as large rises in corporation and personal taxation, and the scrapping of trade union laws, to be socialist.
Could it be even worse?
Sure. I don't believe they intend to stop there for a second; it's a Trojan horse to get into Government.
Utilities and railways are publicly-owned - at least in part - in a number of countries; rent controls are pretty mainstream, though self-defeating in most cases; while the rates of personal taxation being proposed are not exactly huge, by historical or European standards. If that were it, we'd be talking pretty mainstream social democracy. But, as you say, there's every reason to believe it's a Trojan Horse. Unrepentant Marxists will not stop at that.
Sorry, i consider that socialist. We haven't had a UK government seeking to take substantive parts of the UK economy into public ownership since the 1940s and, combined with the trade union law repeals, its a return to beer and sandwiches at number 10 and a country run for producer interests demanding large pay settlement and for outdated working practices, and politically in hock to union barons.
Very scary.
Not that I disagree with you, but that's factually incorrect. Quite a few major nationalisations didn't happen till the 60s/70s, including British Leyland, British Steel and the National Bus Company. Most of this took place under Wilson though, famously, Heath also extended the reach of nationalisation somewhat.
And those proved to be a real success of course...
If Momentum feels 'centrist' MPs are threatening the mandate of the Dear Leader then the show trials and mass deselections will start shortly after with the full backing of PM Corbyn and Comrade McDonnell
I just don't think Momentum are the evil bogey group you think they are. Other than campaigning for Corbyn - I don't see that they have done that much.
I think most of them are very naïve, being led by a hardcore who are anything but.
Momentum is a fascism of the left. We are in a very dangerous situation where a hard left Marxist leader of the opposition who does not believe in parliamentary democracy as we know it (with a leader having the support of his MPs) relies on an extra parliamentary extreme party within a party which encourages a cult of personality of the Leader with a chant and a song to the Great One.
That is just the kind of hyperbolic nonsense that fell completely flat with the electorate in June. The Tories will have to offer more than rhetoric if they are to see Corbyn off next time.
They need to attack Corbyn's plans to raise inheritance and income tax especially but if Corbyn wins we will have the most hard left government in our history, Corbyn is left of even Attlee and Wilson, especially on national security and defence and NATO
The equivalents of Corbyn & McDonnell were accusing the Attlee and Wilson governments of betrayal almost as soon as they were elected. McDonnell and Corbyn themselves cut their political teeth on opposing the Wilson and Callaghan governments of the 1970s. Judge them not on what they say now, but on how they behaved and what they supported for 40 years
My understanding of 'free end of life care' is that when you entered a care home with dementia or Alzheimers or Parkinson's, the Government would pick up the costs.
That is great, a fine & compassionate policy. It makes dementia sufferers equal with cancer sufferers. It will cost more than 3 billion pounds.
Your plan is to examine every dementia sufferer every, what 6 months, to see if they are in "the last 12 months of their life" (your words). And then the Govt will pay the care home fees.
It would be hard to come up with a stupider policy. Or a more cruel one.
Okay last post on this from me.
I'm merely telling you what was in the Labour manifesto because you had a very different idea of what Labour were promising.
I'd be up for a policy that treats dementia sufferers equally or more equally with cancer sufferers. Sounds good to me.
I do think though that for people in care homes they should make a contribution to living costs if they can afford it (I think Dilnot estimates 7-10k/year) as they would be paying that money anyway if they are healthy.
I'd prefer a fully funded 'end of life' care service whether you have cancer or dementia... but we have to recognise that taxes need to rise to cover those costs. That will no doubt include inheritance tax.
Inheritance tax is about the most unpopular tax there is especially as until Osborne cut it more and more were paying it through rising house prices. Social insurance should fund any extra care costs
That was why the dementia tax was such a disaster for the Tories and McDonnell's plans to raise inheritance tax are Labour's weak link
If Momentum feels 'centrist' MPs are threatening the mandate of the Dear Leader then the show trials and mass deselections will start shortly after with the full backing of PM Corbyn and Comrade McDonnell
I just don't think Momentum are the evil bogey group you think they are. Other than campaigning for Corbyn - I don't see that they have done that much.
Those centrist MPs tried a coup against Corbyn not so long ago but there have there been any deselections?
Momentum is full of Trotskyites and Marxists like Lansman
They will keep centrist MPs if it helps them get into power, once in power they can be deselected at will
If you kick an MP out of your party, they stay an MP. And they're probably less likely to vote for you. Your scenario would be a surefire way for Labour, having won an election, to lose power.
Momentum want power to achieve socialism not power for its own sake, if any Labour MPs block that they will aim to ensure they are no longer Labour MPs
So they will be opposition MPs - and bang goes the majority.
Corbyn may well have enough MPs with the SNP and the Greens and Plaid for a left-wing government anyway without centrist Labour MPs. Otherwise centrist MPs are unlikely to have a majority either so Corbyn would lead a minority government
Would a weakened coalition or minority government be able to bring in the sort of socialism that you're scared of? Sorry, but your arguments seem to be constructed on a back to front basis.
My understanding of 'free end of life care' is that when you entered a care home with dementia or Alzheimers or Parkinson's, the Government would pick up the costs.
That is great, a fine & compassionate policy. It makes dementia sufferers equal with cancer sufferers. It will cost more than 3 billion pounds.
Your plan is to examine every dementia sufferer every, what 6 months, to see if they are in "the last 12 months of their life" (your words). And then the Govt will pay the care home fees.
It would be hard to come up with a stupider policy. Or a more cruel one.
Okay last post on this from me.
I'm merely telling you what was in the Labour manifesto because you had a very different idea of what Labour were promising.
I'd be up for a policy that treats dementia sufferers equally or more equally with cancer sufferers. Sounds good to me.
I do think though that for people in care homes they should make a contribution to living costs if they can afford it (I think Dilnot estimates 7-10k/year) as they would be paying that money anyway if they are healthy.
I'd prefer a fully funded 'end of life' care service whether you have cancer or dementia... but we have to recognise that taxes need to rise to cover those costs. That will no doubt include inheritance tax.
Inheritance should be forced to be added to a pension pot (As cash) and then taxed/treated in the normal fashion.
Would massively increase the potential for tax avoidance. Gifts, spending on children etc.
This, by a distance, is the most dysfunctional government of my lifetime. The nearest comparison would be the dog days of the Callaghan and Major regimes, but even while each vote in Parliament was uncertain then, the government.
All this as we face the greatest crisis since the War.
You much detail.
Social followed.
Corrected it for you.
Utilities and railways are publicly-owned - at least in part - in a number of countries; rent controls are pretty mainstream, though self-defeating in most cases; while the rates of personal taxation being proposed are not exactly huge, by historical or European standards. If that were it, we'd be talking pretty mainstream social democracy. But, as you say, there's every reason to believe it's a Trojan Horse. Unrepentant Marxists will not stop at that.
Sorry, i consider that socialist. We haven't had a UK government seeking to take substantive parts of the UK economy into public ownership since the 1940s and, combined with the trade union law repeals, its a return to beer and sandwiches at number 10 and a country run for producer interests demanding large pay settlement and for outdated working practices, and politically in hock to union barons.
Very scary.
Not that I disagree with you, but that's factually incorrect. Quite a few major nationalisations didn't happen till the 60s/70s, including British Leyland, British Steel and the National Bus Company. Most of this took place under Wilson though, famously, Heath also extended the reach of nationalisation somewhat.
And those proved to be a real success of course...
In your rush to find any excuse to be nasty/sarcastic/partisan perhaps you failed to read the words "not that I disagree with you"? Though FYI one of my three examples (the NBC) was quite successful, unlike the other two, and far better than what followed the very cack-handed privatisation of buses in 1985.
If Momentum feels 'centrist' MPs are threatening the mandate of the Dear Leader then the show trials and mass deselections will start shortly after with the full backing of PM Corbyn and Comrade McDonnell
I just don't think Momentum are the evil bogey group you think they are. Other than campaigning for Corbyn - I don't see that they have done that much.
Those centrist MPs tried a coup against Corbyn not so long ago but there have there been any deselections?
Momentum is full of Trotskyites and Marxists like Lansman
They will keep centrist MPs if it helps them get into power, once in power they can be deselected at will
If you kick an MP out of your party, they stay an MP. And they're probably less likely to vote for you. Your scenario would be a surefire way for Labour, having won an election, to lose power.
Momentum want power to achieve socialism not power for its own sake, if any Labour MPs block that they will aim to ensure they are no longer Labour MPs
So they will be opposition MPs - and bang goes the majority.
Corbyn may well have enough MPs with the SNP and the Greens and Plaid for a left-wing government anyway without centrist Labour MPs. Otherwise centrist MPs are unlikely to have a majority either so Corbyn would lead a minority government
Would a weakened coalition or minority government be able to bring in the sort of socialism that you're scared of? Sorry, but your arguments seem to be constructed on a back to front basis.
It would pave the way until a majority Labour government freed of preselected centrists insufficiently loyal to the Dear Leader
The shadow cabinet really are as thick as shit. It reminds me during the GE campaign when they went full on rant that costa coffee was a tax dodger using overseas companies, only to be told they are totally uk based.
My understanding of 'free end of life care' is that when you entered a care home with dementia or Alzheimers or Parkinson's, the Government would pick up the costs.
That is great, a fine & compassionate policy. It makes dementia sufferers equal with cancer sufferers. It will cost more than 3 billion pounds.
Your plan is to examine every dementia sufferer every, what 6 months, to see if they are in "the last 12 months of their life" (your words). And then the Govt will pay the care home fees.
It would be hard to come up with a stupider policy. Or a more cruel one.
Okay last post on this from me.
I'm merely telling you what was in the Labour manifesto because you had a very different idea of what Labour were promising.
I'd be up for a policy that treats dementia sufferers equally or more equally with cancer sufferers. Sounds good to me.
I do think though that for people in care homes they should make a contribution to living costs if they can afford it (I think Dilnot estimates 7-10k/year) as they would be paying that money anyway if they are healthy.
I'd prefer a fully funded 'end of life' care service whether you have cancer or dementia... but we have to recognise that taxes need to rise to cover those costs. That will no doubt include inheritance tax.
Inheritance should be forced to be added to a pension pot (As cash) and then taxed/treated in the normal fashion.
A sensible proposal. Politicians I think would dislike it because (if I understand your proposal correctly) it takes both the cash itself and the associated tax out of circulation until the pension gets drawn down,
My understanding of 'free end of life care' is that when you entered a care home with dementia or Alzheimers or Parkinson's, the Government would pick up the costs.
That is great, a fine & compassionate policy. It makes dementia sufferers equal with cancer sufferers. It will cost more than 3 billion pounds.
Your plan is to examine every dementia sufferer every, what 6 months, to see if they are in "the last 12 months of their life" (your words). And then the Govt will pay the care home fees.
It would be hard to come up with a stupider policy. Or a more cruel one.
Okay last post on this from me.
I'm merely telling you what was in the Labour manifesto because you had a very different idea of what Labour were promising.
I'd be up for a policy that treats dementia sufferers equally or more equally with cancer sufferers. Sounds good to me.
I do think though that for people in care homes they should make a contribution to living costs if they can afford it (I think Dilnot estimates 7-10k/year) as they would be paying that money anyway if they are healthy.
I'd prefer a fully funded 'end of life' care service whether you have cancer or dementia... but we have to recognise that taxes need to rise to cover those costs. That will no doubt include inheritance tax.
Inheritance tax is about the most unpopular tax there is especially as until Osborne cut it more and more were paying it through rising house prices. Social insurance should fund any extra care costs
That was why the dementia tax was such a disaster for the Tories and McDonnell's plans to raise inheritance tax are Labour's weak link
Where's the evidence that "inheritance tax is the most unpopular tax"? What you mean is that it's very unpopular with a relatively small, wealthy segment of society which includes yourself.
Whatever happened to the Thatcherite ideal that people should stand on their own two feet and make their own way in the world? Maggie must be turning in her grave to see how her party descendents are so desperate to facilitate a system whereby citizens' success in life depends so heavily on whether they benefit from unearned handouts from mummy and daddy.
I'm a lifelong Tory voter and much of Corbyn's programme fills me with dismay....but if he puts inheritance tax up to 100% that's one small thing I'll support him on, as I'm guessing will a significant number of voters less well heeled than yourself.
My understanding of 'free end of life care' is that when you entered a care home with dementia or Alzheimers or Parkinson's, the Government would pick up the costs.
That is great, a fine & compassionate policy. It makes dementia sufferers equal with cancer sufferers. It will cost more than 3 billion pounds.
Your plan is to examine every dementia sufferer every, what 6 months, to see if they are in "the last 12 months of their life" (your words). And then the Govt will pay the care home fees.
It would be hard to come up with a stupider policy. Or a more cruel one.
Okay last post on this from me.
I'm merely telling you what was in the Labour manifesto because you had a very different idea of what Labour were promising.
I'd be up for a policy that treats dementia sufferers equally or more equally with cancer sufferers. Sounds good to me.
I do think though that for people in care homes they should make a contribution to living costs if they can afford it (I think Dilnot estimates 7-10k/year) as they would be paying that money anyway if they are healthy.
I'd prefer a fully funded 'end of life' care service whether you have cancer or dementia... but we have to recognise that taxes need to rise to cover those costs. That will no doubt include inheritance tax.
Inheritance tax is about the most unpopular tax there is especially as until Osborne cut it more and more were paying it through rising house prices. Social insurance should fund any extra care costs
That was why the dementia tax was such a disaster for the Tories and McDonnell's plans to raise inheritance tax are Labour's weak link
As the number of homeowners shrinks I think it quite likely that opposition to inheritance tax will shrink also. In the early 20th century death duties were one of the largest sources of tax revenues - at that time many people believed that inherited wealth encouraged idleness and stifled enterprise and concentrated wealth in the hands of an undeserving elite.
My understanding of 'free end of life care' is that when you entered a care home with dementia or Alzheimers or Parkinson's, the Government would pick up the costs.
That is great, a fine & compassionate policy. It makes dementia sufferers equal with cancer sufferers. It will cost more than 3 billion pounds.
Your plan is to examine every dementia sufferer every, what 6 months, to see if they are in "the last 12 months of their life" (your words). And then the Govt will pay the care home fees.
It would be hard to come up with a stupider policy. Or a more cruel one.
Okay last post on this from me.
I'm merely telling you what was in the Labour manifesto because you had a very different idea of what Labour were promising.
I'd be up for a policy that treats dementia sufferers equally or more equally with cancer sufferers. Sounds good to me.
I do think though that for people in care homes they should make a contribution to living costs if they can afford it (I think Dilnot estimates 7-10k/year) as they would be paying that money anyway if they are healthy.
I'd prefer a fully funded 'end of life' care service whether you have cancer or dementia... but we have to recognise that taxes need to rise to cover those costs. That will no doubt include inheritance tax.
Inheritance tax is about the most unpopular tax there is especially as until Osborne cut it more and more were paying it through rising house prices. Social insurance should fund any extra care costs
That was why the dementia tax was such a disaster for the Tories and McDonnell's plans to raise inheritance tax are Labour's weak link
As the number of homeowners shrinks I think it quite likely that opposition to inheritance tax will shrink also. In the early 20th century death duties were one of the largest sources of tax revenues - at that time many people believed that inherited wealth encouraged idleness and stifled enterprise and concentrated wealth in the hands of an undeserving elite.
Exactly so.
And, to the consternation of her wets and grandees, Thatcher was very sympathetic to that analysis. Now the Tories appear to have reverted to a kind of Downton Abbey ideal and are miffed as to why they are re-toxifying amongst the masses.
As the number of homeowners shrinks I think it quite likely that opposition to inheritance tax will shrink also. In the early 20th century death duties were one of the largest sources of tax revenues - at that time many people believed that inherited wealth encouraged idleness and stifled enterprise and concentrated wealth in the hands of an undeserving elite.
Opposition to inheritance tax hasn't always been 'logical' in the sense that previously a lot of people don't like even though they are very unlikely to ever have to pay it.
As for inherited wealth encouraging idleness, stifling enterprise and concentrating wealth in the hands of the undeserving... maybe that view is making a comeback!
My understanding of 'free end of life care' is that when you entered a care home with dementia or Alzheimers or Parkinson's, the Government would pick up the costs.
That is great, a fine & compassionate policy. It makes dementia sufferers equal with cancer sufferers. It will cost more than 3 billion pounds.
Your plan is to examine every dementia sufferer every, what 6 months, to see if they are in "the last 12 months of their life" (your words). And then the Govt will pay the care home fees.
It would be hard to come up with a stupider policy. Or a more cruel one.
Okay last post on this from me.
I'm merely telling you what was in the Labour manifesto because you had a very different idea of what Labour were promising.
I'd be up for a policy that treats dementia sufferers equally or more equally with cancer sufferers. Sounds good to me.
I do think though that for people in care homes they should make a contribution to living costs if they can afford it (I think Dilnot estimates 7-10k/year) as they would be paying that money anyway if they are healthy.
I'd prefer a fully funded 'end of life' care service whether you have cancer or dementia... but we have to recognise that taxes need to rise to cover those costs. That will no doubt include inheritance tax.
Inheritance should be forced to be added to a pension pot (As cash) and then taxed/treated in the normal fashion.
A sensible proposal. Politicians I think would dislike it because (if I understand your proposal correctly) it takes both the cash itself and the associated tax out of circulation until the pension gets drawn down,
Yes but you have greater future tax receipts, more cash heads into UK equities (This is the general place people have DC pensions); and immediate asset price inflation is reduced. Of course those inheriting may well be already drawing a pension themselves - but you still have a 'pot' when you're drawing down.. It gives a side benefit of the inheritors having more of their own cash to pay for their care costs etc too.
My understanding of 'free end of life care' is that when you entered a care home with dementia or Alzheimers or Parkinson's, the Government would pick up the costs.
That is great, a fine & compassionate policy. It makes dementia sufferers equal with cancer sufferers. It will cost more than 3 billion pounds.
Your plan is to examine every dementia sufferer every, what 6 months, to see if they are in "the last 12 months of their life" (your words). And then the Govt will pay the care home fees.
It would be hard to come up with a stupider policy. Or a more cruel one.
Okay last post on this from me.
I'm merely telling you what was in the Labour manifesto because you had a very different idea of what Labour were promising.
I'd be up for a policy that treats dementia sufferers equally or more equally with cancer sufferers. Sounds good to me.
I do think though that for people in care homes they should make a contribution to living costs if they can afford it (I think Dilnot estimates 7-10k/year) as they would be paying that money anyway if they are healthy.
I'd prefer a fully funded 'end of life' care service whether you have cancer or dementia... but we have to recognise that taxes need to rise to cover those costs. That will no doubt include inheritance tax.
Inheritance tax is about the most unpopular tax there is especially as until Osborne cut it more and more were paying it through rising house prices. Social insurance should fund any extra care costs
That was why the dementia tax was such a disaster for the Tories and McDonnell's plans to raise inheritance tax are Labour's weak link
As the number of homeowners shrinks I think it quite likely that opposition to inheritance tax will shrink also. In the early 20th century death duties were one of the largest sources of tax revenues - at that time many people believed that inherited wealth encouraged idleness and stifled enterprise and concentrated wealth in the hands of an undeserving elite.
Death duties were seen as the best way to break up the big aristocratic estates.
I note that more recent aristocrats have become very adept at legally dodging them. The New Duke of Westminster recently inherited billions without a pound of inheritance tax being paid:
HHemmelig - will you stop people from giving away their estate?
I support inheritance tax being raised (or at least not reduced), and hope that the government will do what it can to close loopholes as identified by foxinsoxuk.
My understanding of 'free end of life care' is that when you entered a care home with dementia or Alzheimers or Parkinson's, the Government would pick up the costs.
That is great, a fine & compassionate policy. It makes dementia sufferers equal with cancer sufferers. It will cost more than 3 billion pounds.
Your plan is to examine every dementia sufferer every, what 6 months, to see if they are in "the last 12 months of their life" (your words). And then the Govt will pay the care home fees.
It would be hard to come up with a stupider policy. Or a more cruel one.
Okay last post on this from me.
I'm merely telling you what was in the Labour manifesto because you had a very different idea of what Labour were promising.
I'd be up for a policy that treats dementia sufferers equally or more equally with cancer sufferers. Sounds good to me.
I do think though that for people in care homes they should make a contribution to living costs if they can afford it (I think Dilnot estimates 7-10k/year) as they would be paying that money anyway if they are healthy.
I'd prefer a fully funded 'end of life' care service whether you have cancer or dementia... but we have to recognise that taxes need to rise to cover those costs. That will no doubt include inheritance tax.
Inheritance tax is about the most unpopular tax there is especially as until Osborne cut it more and more were paying it through rising house prices. Social insurance should fund any extra care costs
That was why the dementia tax was such a disaster for the Tories and McDonnell's plans to raise inheritance tax are Labour's weak link
As the number of homeowners shrinks I think it quite likely that opposition to inheritance tax will shrink also. In the early 20th century death duties were one of the largest sources of tax revenues - at that time many people believed that inherited wealth encouraged idleness and stifled enterprise and concentrated wealth in the hands of an undeserving elite.
Death duties were seen as the best way to break up the big aristocratic estates.
I note that more recent aristocrats have become very adept at legally dodging them. The New Duke of Westminster recently inherited billions without a pound of inheritance tax being paid:
As the number of homeowners shrinks I think it quite likely that opposition to inheritance tax will shrink also. In the early 20th century death duties were one of the largest sources of tax revenues - at that time many people believed that inherited wealth encouraged idleness and stifled enterprise and concentrated wealth in the hands of an undeserving elite.
Opposition to inheritance tax hasn't always been 'logical' in the sense that previously a lot of people don't like even though they are very unlikely to ever have to pay it.
As for inherited wealth encouraging idleness, stifling enterprise and concentrating wealth in the hands of the undeserving... maybe that view is making a comeback!
Actually much inherited wealth now pays for children's deposits on a house or flat nowadays
My understanding of 'free end of life care' is that when you entered a care home with dementia or Alzheimers or Parkinson's, the Government would pick up the costs.
That is great, a fine & compassionate policy. It makes dementia sufferers equal with cancer sufferers. It will cost more than 3 billion pounds.
Your plan is to examine every dementia sufferer every, what 6 months, to see if they are in "the last 12 months of their life" (your words). And then the Govt will pay the care home fees.
It would be hard to come up with a stupider policy. Or a more cruel one.
Okay last post on this from me.
I'm merely telling you what was in the Labour manifesto because you had a very different idea of what Labour were promising.
I'd be up for a policy that treats dementia sufferers equally or more equally with cancer sufferers. Sounds good to me.
I do think though that for people in care homes they should make a contribution to living costs if they can afford it (I think Dilnot estimates 7-10k/year) as they would be paying that money anyway if they are healthy.
I'd prefer a fully funded 'end of life' care service whether you have cancer or dementia... but we have to recognise that taxes need to rise to cover those costs. That will no doubt include inheritance tax.
Inheritance tax is about the most unpopular tax there is especially as until Osborne cut it more and more were paying it through rising house prices. Social insurance should fund any extra care costs
That was why the dementia tax was such a disaster for the Tories and McDonnell's plans to raise inheritance tax are Labour's weak link
As the number of homeowners shrinks I think it quite likely that opposition to inheritance tax will shrink also. In the early 20th century death duties were one of the largest sources of tax revenues - at that time many people believed that inherited wealth encouraged idleness and stifled enterprise and concentrated wealth in the hands of an undeserving elite.
60% of the country are still homeowners so 60% of children will still inherit and likely be hit by a rise in inheritance tax
If Momentum feels 'centrist' MPs are threatening the mandate of the Dear Leader then the show trials and mass deselections will start shortly after with the full backing of PM Corbyn and Comrade McDonnell
I just don't think Momentum are the evil bogey group you think they are. Other than campaigning for Corbyn - I don't see that they have done that much.
Those centrist MPs tried a coup against Corbyn not so long ago but there have there been any deselections?
Momentum is full of Trotskyites and Marxists like Lansman
They will keep centrist MPs if it helps them get into power, once in power they can be deselected at will
If you kick an MP out of your party, they stay an MP. And they're probably less likely to vote for you. Your scenario would be a surefire way for Labour, having won an election, to lose power.
Momentum want power to achieve socialism not power for its own sake, if any Labour MPs block that they will aim to ensure they are no longer Labour MPs
So they will be opposition MPs - and bang goes the majority.
Corbyn may well have enough MPs with the SNP and the Greens and Plaid for a left-wing government anyway without centrist Labour MPs. Otherwise centrist MPs are unlikely to have a majority either so Corbyn would lead a minority government
Would a weakened coalition or minority government be able to bring in the sort of socialism that you're scared of? Sorry, but your arguments seem to be constructed on a back to front basis.
It would pave the way until a majority Labour government freed of preselected centrists insufficiently loyal to the Dear Leader
But those MPs would still have to have been elected. So it's a worry not for the next election but potentially for the one after?
My understanding of 'free end of life care' is that when you entered a care home with dementia or Alzheimers or Parkinson's, the Government would pick up the costs.
That is great, a fine & compassionate policy. It makes dementia sufferers equal with cancer sufferers. It will cost more than 3 billion pounds.
Your plan is to examine every dementia sufferer every, what 6 months, to see if they are in "the last 12 months of their life" (your words). And then the Govt will pay the care home fees.
It would be hard to come up with a stupider policy. Or a more cruel one.
Okay last post on this from me.
I'm merely telling you what was in the Labour manifesto because you had a very different idea of what Labour were promising.
I'd be up for a policy that treats dementia sufferers equally or more equally with cancer sufferers. Sounds good to me.
I do think though that for people in care homes they should make a contribution to living costs if they can afford it (I think Dilnot estimates 7-10k/year) as they would be paying that money anyway if they are healthy.
I'd prefer a fully funded 'end of life' care service whether you have cancer or dementia... but we have to recognise that taxes need to rise to cover those costs. That will no doubt include inheritance tax.
Inheritance tax is about the most unpopular tax there is especially as until Osborne cut it more and more were paying it through rising house prices. Social insurance should fund any extra care costs
That was why the dementia tax was such a disaster for the Tories and McDonnell's plans to raise inheritance tax are Labour's weak link
As the number of homeowners shrinks
Death duties were seen as the best way to break up the big aristocratic estates.
I note that more recent aristocrats have become very adept at legally dodging them. The New Duke of Westminster recently inherited billions without a pound of inheritance tax being paid:
Comments
In the UK you could whack on several billions onto that for planning, legal compensation, environmental, and health and safety regulation, and social and employment standards.
Has anybody on here ever changed their mind as result of something they've read on here?
In amongst the banal tit for tatting I've read some great stuff, but I must admit most of what I read confirms my original view.
Forcing candidates onto local parties was, I believe, much more common under New Labour.
And the vast majority of Labour MPs won't support Marxism.
And if it's something not in the manifesto then it will have to get through the House of Lords.
In a weird way a Corbyn PM is more vulnerable than a Corbyn Leader of Opposition.
I naturally thought it meant that when you enter a care home with a disease like Alzheimers or Parkinsons, it meant that your care was free. Does it mean that?
I spent 6 years of my recent life visiting care homes to see my mother die of Parkinson's. (I paid the care home fees myself, and I paid them uncomplainingly.)
Do explain how much of this would be covered by 'free end of life care' ? The full 6 years. The last year. How are you going to determine when the care becomes free, and when it isn't? When does 'end of life' begin?
Please note that the 3 billion pounds is not just for free end of life care. It covers:: "Our service will require an additional £3 billion of public funds every year, enough to place a maximum limit on lifetime personal contributions to care costs, raise the asset threshold below which people are entitled to state support, and provide free end of life care. "
I am still -- posts after YDoethur correctly said the numbers in the Labour manifesto are dishonest -- trying to get a Labour supporter to explain what 'free end of life care' actually means.
Until we know what it means, then it is meaningless to try & cost it.
Which is the point YDoethur was trying to make. The numbers are content-free.
https://twitter.com/camusson/status/919839370743599105
I imagine it mostly nuances our pre-existing points-of-view, and puts some useful boundaries on them.
Very occasionally they might be changed.
You were the one claiming you could cost it - and then producing figures based on all care homes becoming free and it costing 18bn/year. I noted that 3bn/year was roughly what the Dilnot Report asked for - so it's clearly not a meaningless amount of money.
Generally I think, end of life care means roughly the last 12 months/could be less if someone deteriorates quickly.
In China, for example, throwing men and money at fixing a problem generally isn't an issue, and they are (I'm sorry to say) willing to compromise on safety. In parts of the Middle-East they certainly value build way more than design, and get impatient with planning/ set-up.
We probably spend a lot more money on "social" endeavours for projects in the UK, but also are more resource efficient across the programme lifecycle.
That is great, a fine & compassionate policy. It makes dementia sufferers equal with cancer sufferers. It will cost more than 3 billion pounds.
Your plan is to examine every dementia sufferer every, what 6 months, to see if they are in "the last 12 months of their life" (your words). And then the Govt will pay the care home fees.
It would be hard to come up with a stupider policy. Or a more cruel one.
That bloody woman.
having been threatened with a ban and fineI realise how brilliant they are.Other than campaigning for Corbyn - I don't see that they have done that much.
Those centrist MPs tried a coup against Corbyn not so long ago but there have there been any deselections?
You have to laugh!
Until Plato started mining the sources of information where his voters were making their views known...
They will keep centrist MPs if it helps them get into power, once in power they can be deselected at will
I'm merely telling you what was in the Labour manifesto because you had a very different idea of what Labour were promising.
I'd be up for a policy that treats dementia sufferers equally or more equally with cancer sufferers. Sounds good to me.
I do think though that for people in care homes they should make a contribution to living costs if they can afford it (I think Dilnot estimates 7-10k/year) as they would be paying that money anyway if they are healthy.
It is clearly inequitable.
The problem is dementia patients can live for 5-10 years needing full-time care, so it is unfortunately very expensive.
It is in the Labour Manifesto. It is under the section entitled Towards a National Care Service.
I am just trying to find out what it means.
Obviously the new members are favourably disposed to people who support Corbyn, but so are many of the older members. I'd expect new candidates to be on average to the left of retirees, but it's a trickle.
That was why the dementia tax was such a disaster for the Tories and McDonnell's plans to raise inheritance tax are Labour's weak link
Sorry, but your arguments seem to be constructed on a back to front basis.
The shadow cabinet really are as thick as shit. It reminds me during the GE campaign when they went full on rant that costa coffee was a tax dodger using overseas companies, only to be told they are totally uk based.
Wi-fi security flaw 'puts devices at risk of hacks'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41635516
Whatever happened to the Thatcherite ideal that people should stand on their own two feet and make their own way in the world? Maggie must be turning in her grave to see how her party descendents are so desperate to facilitate a system whereby citizens' success in life depends so heavily on whether they benefit from unearned handouts from mummy and daddy.
I'm a lifelong Tory voter and much of Corbyn's programme fills me with dismay....but if he puts inheritance tax up to 100% that's one small thing I'll support him on, as I'm guessing will a significant number of voters less well heeled than yourself.
And, to the consternation of her wets and grandees, Thatcher was very sympathetic to that analysis. Now the Tories appear to have reverted to a kind of Downton Abbey ideal and are miffed as to why they are re-toxifying amongst the masses.
As for inherited wealth encouraging idleness, stifling enterprise and concentrating wealth in the hands of the undeserving... maybe that view is making a comeback!
Of course those inheriting may well be already drawing a pension themselves - but you still have a 'pot' when you're drawing down..
It gives a side benefit of the inheritors having more of their own cash to pay for their care costs etc too.
Hope none of our Irish posters is suffering the worst effects of the storm.
I note that more recent aristocrats have become very adept at legally dodging them. The New Duke of Westminster recently inherited billions without a pound of inheritance tax being paid:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/duke-of-westminster-son-avoids-inheritance-tax-billions-britains-richest-men-family-trusts-rules-a7998246.html
Surely it is time that the taxation of family trusts was looked at with fresh eyes?
So it's a worry not for the next election but potentially for the one after?