Labour Manifesto

[Andrew Hunter]

It was widely reported in the national press, including both right and left wing biased papers, that the website was created from conservative party origins. Unless you have proof to prove otherwise I will accept that.

It would seem to gel with the conservative disinformation campaign that has been widely proved and acknowledged over the past few weeks.

It would make no sense to me that labour supporters would create a spoof labour manifesto website pretending it was created by the conservatives, when the content of that website is a trouncing and undermining of labour manifesto policies. Why would labour supporters publicly undermine labour policy even if it was part of a deception campaign ?

I have seen the so called manifesto that I think you are on about and that is nothing that has not been done before it is a clear suggestion that these are what the natin would face should you vote for labour. However there was a manifesto that could be seen as being real put out there that would destroy them unless it was also put out that the tories had done it to under mine them when in fact it was a group of young labour supporters.

 

[Zerax]

I wonder why people cant see the reason why Labour think it is a good idea in theory to nationalise these things though. We have had years of headlines concerning money grabbing bosses, late trains, putting profits before people. rubbish infrastructure etc. etc.so they are just saying we are going to attempt to actually put people first. What a novel idea that is!!
Don't get me wrong, the reality is probably a bit different to that but at least the sentiment is better than the selfish society i believe we are becoming.

The reality is alot different !!

Whenever I hear about nationalisation... I'm reminded of a mate of mine from years back. His father worked on the railways when it was British Rail... then was transferred over to the new private company, Railtrack. He lasted about 6 months with the new company... then left. The reason was that under British Rail, there'd be like 30 blokes on a shift, of which 10 wouldn't turn up but their mates would clock them in. Then of the 20 blokes left, half of them would get their heads down in the shed/van etc. So you'd actually only have about ⅓rd of the workforce actually working.

When Railtrack came along, they stopped all that and all 30 blokes had to work !

That is the reality of a nationalised industry... they are largely just job clubs... and that's exactly what Corbyn wants... a large captive populace who's vote you can rely on year after year.

So any notion that a government can run a company just as efficiently as private enterprise is poppycock...

 

[andyb]

Sorry Andy I have read far too much of that rubbish on F/B. it is spin by labour supporters (Not Labour party ) to put out there that anything that is questionable about the labour manifesto as fake report put out by the conservatives. just as they put out the results of elections and referendums are manipulated by the Russians.
Yawn please not on here I thought all us electricians were intelligent enough to spot bull ---- and evaluate the information available to come to a logical and intelligent solution,
[automerge]1576103781[/automerge]

Paul,
As I have asked many a people who spout this garbage. Please show me where (anywhere in the world let alone on the side of a bus) it was stated that £350 bn would be spent on the NHS.
the trouble is the figure! If it had read 350bn Euro or £250bn for the NHS would the disgust be as such.
The fact is Chinese whispers and an unwillingness to correct an error put forward without clear explanation by a junior member for fear of looking inept has put them in this position.
The true figure was as I have said 350bn euros not pounds sterling which at the time translated to £250bn and never ever was it stated that this figure would or infact could be spent on the NHS more over it was put as "Lets fund or NHS"
So no it wasn't a lie it was a mistake as they apologised for the next day they just did not elaborate what the error was, in my opinion another error of judgement.

Andy you're far to eager to believe all the lies put out by the Tories and the leave campaign that you will not believe your own eyes, or you shape the argument in your head to deflect to Labour.
Here's the bus,

Now in your head you'll employ cognitive dissonance to convince yourself that Let's fund our NHS instead is not really meant to mean what it says. The Tories paid Google for an ad that linked to the false manifesto website, they changed their Twitter name on the night of the leaders debate to 'Fact check UK' to con people into thinking that it was an independent fact checking service. Analysis from First Draft found that in the first week of December 88% of the Tory ads on Facebook were either misleading or lying, Labour 0%.

But as I say, you will completely fail to take any of this on board or you'll dismiss it by telling yourself they're all the same as each other.

 

[Midwest]

I think @Andrew Hunter is referring to the misleading statements and half truths ALL the political parties make in their manifesto’s etc. If anybody believes they will follow through after election, they easily impressed.

Perhaps we should use this thread, to see how they all behave after this election.

 

[andyb]

I think @Andrew Hunter is referring to the misleading statements and half truths ALL the political parties make in their manifesto’s etc. If anybody believes they will follow through after election, they easily impressed.

Perhaps we should use this thread, to see how they all behave after this election.

You can only check the claim of the winner Midwest, the losers are not in a position to implement their manifesto.

 

[Paul L]

Paul, As I have asked many a people who spout this garbage. Please show me where (anywhere in the world let alone on the side of a bus) it was stated that £350 bn would be spent on the NHS.
Source URL: Labour Manifesto - https://www.electriciansforums.net/threads/labour-manifesto.180767/page-3

Andrew,

I didn't say 350 billion (pounds or euros) as you can see from my post, i said £350 million which as andyb said was the inference on the side of the leave bus that it would go to the NHS and if you don't think it is an inference then that is up to you.

I agree that public ownership isn't always a good thing but my point that Labour are at least trying to think of "the many not the few" seems to be being missed. Has Boris not told any porkies? but people seem to believe every word he says because it suits them. I am certainly not blind to many Labour faults but Boris bluster hasn't won me over at all.

 

[Midwest]

You can only check the claim of the winner Midwest, the losers are not in a position to implement their manifesto.

Suppose that’s why Labour have got away with things the last 9 years, then.

 

[andyb]

Following on from Paul L's post re public ownership. We're way behind our competitors with fibre broadband. UK has 8% of properties connected, Japan has over 95%, this was achieved by the state, and S Korea has similar with state and private investment. So it's obvious that the free market in the UK is not working regarding this. Broadband is a necessity for any economy nowadays, no one complains about state funding for roads, they're state funded, if they were left to the free market we’d have a lot less roads than we have now.
Probably about 8%
[automerge]1576145830[/automerge]

Suppose that’s why Labour have got away with things the last 9 years, then.

Don't understand MW, what have they got away with?

 

[Midwest]

Following on from Paul L's post re public ownership. We're way behind our competitors with fibre broadband. UK has 8% of properties connected, Japan has over 95%, this was achieved by the state, and S Korea has similar with state and private investment. So it's obvious that the free market in the UK is not working regarding this. Broadband is a necessity for any economy nowadays, no one complains about state funding for roads, they're state funded, if they were left to the free market we’d have a lot less roads than we have now.
Probably about 8%
[automerge]1576145830[/automerge]

Don't understand MW, what have they got away with?

Telecommunications is just as important, so need to add mobile phones etc to nationalisation.
[automerge]1576146119[/automerge]

Don't understand MW, what have they got away with?

They all exaggerate in their manifesto’s, but as you point out, it’s only the one(s) that forms the government, that can be verified.

 

[andyb]

Telecommunications is just as important, so need to add mobile phones etc to nationalisation.

No, the mobile network is working fine. Plenty of choice, as far as I know loads of space (if that makes sense) no problem. The market is doing its job, so your point is not valid.

If on the other hand, there was only one or two suppliers and they were not rolling out mobile coverage to the whole UK just the profitable parts like big city’s then you'd have a point.
[automerge]1576146571[/automerge]

They all exaggerate in their manifesto’s, but as you point out, it’s only the one(s) that forms the government, that can be verified.

Quite right MW.

 

[snowhead]

The mobile network is not working.
There are still plenty of areas with No, Unreliable or Poor coverage.

Nationalisation is not required, it would be far quicker and cheaper for the Government to subsidise the rollout of Broadband and Mobile 100% coverage than it would be to be fighting Telecom providers in the courts for years over Nationalisation and asset seizing.

 

[andyb]

The mobile network is not working.
There are still plenty of areas with No, Unreliable or Poor coverage.

Nationalisation is not required, it would be far quicker and cheaper for the Government to subsidise the rollout of Broadband and Mobile 100% coverage than it would be to be fighting Telecom providers in the courts for years over Nationalisation and asset seizing.

As far as I'm aware 97% of the UK can get 4g Snow, I tend to agree with you re subsidies, I would prefer a joint private/public venture. All I'm saying is how it is now is not working and I prefer Labour's way to the Tory leave it to to market approach.

 

[Midwest]

No, the mobile network is working fine. Plenty of choice, as far as I know loads of space (if that makes sense) no problem. The market is doing its job, so your point is not valid.

I thought Labour pledge was free broadband for all. If you say that broadband is necessary for an economy, so must be telecommunication. Therefore that must be provided for, by the state, for free as well, if you follow that same argument.

 

[andyb]

I thought Labour pledge was free broadband for all. If you say that broadband is necessary for an economy, so must be telecommunication. Therefore that must be provided for, by the state, for free as well, if you follow that same argument.

I think you're deliberately missing the point MW.
Let's try this way. If the private sector had managed to get fibre to 95% of properties in the UK, then there’d be no need for any government involvement. If it was fair and reasonable priced.
It's not because it's necessary, it's because it's plainly not working.
Hope this helps.

 

[snowhead]

If the private sector had managed to get fibre to 95% of properties in the UK, then there’d be no need for any government involvement. If it was fair and reasonably priced.

If it was economically viable then the Private sector would have done it, the fact they haven't means its not. Same with the mobile network.
In the unlikely event that the Broadband network is Nationalised the Government and ultimately the tax payer will find out to their cost why the Private sector didn't do it.

 

[Paul L]

It all comes down to the same old scenario in the end, private companies do it because they want to make a profit on it and if there isn't a profit in it for them then sod the people that suffer because of it ie. the ones who haven't got broadband because its too difficult to get it there.So what do we do with these people in these areas?, just abandon them or come up with a way to help them?

 

[DPG]

Unfortunately nobody is going run a fibre to every remote farmhouse in the country, government, private or otherwise.

 

[snowhead]

A Labour Government seems to think it could,

 

[Paul L]

I understand that DPG but to me, and it is just my opinion, its indicative of the i'm alright jack and sod the rest of you unsavoury attitude that is running through this country. What wrong with thinking of ways of helping as many people as we can,Oh sorry there's no profit in it for us guvnor so tough luck. I bet all the powers that be have got broadband.

 

[DPG]

I understand that DPG but to me, and it is just my opinion, its indicative of the i'm alright jack and sod the rest of you unsavoury attitude that is running through this country. What wrong with thinking of ways of helping as many people as we can,Oh sorry there's no profit in it for us guvnor so tough luck. I bet all the powers that be have got broadband.

Not really. How far do you want to go? There's a house not that far from me that hasn't got mains power. He was quoted about 35000 to have a feed a few years ago. Should he get that for free as well? Paid for by me and you etc?