Jeremy's ten points

Lower Welfare Bill achieved throigh invedsstment and growth. What growth? Growth is not something which can be ordered or paid for.

Growth comes by manufacturing, selling and buying efficiently. If you are going to tax all those with money they will leave the UK and their factories will close eventually. that kind of socialism has not worked anywhere in the world.

Growth through building lots of houses that are needed.
Those with money have always threatened to leave the country. Let them go. Some of us are fed up with being blackmailed like that.
Have you any idea how many of the population earn over thirty thousand?
Are they all going to leave?

"... Growth is not something which can be ordered or paid for ..."
"Growth comes by manufacturing, selling and buying efficiently ...

Isn't this a slightly contrary view MargaretX. You would, I presume, agree that investment is needed to grow manufacturing which, of course, is not the only growth we have that helps make us the sixth richest country in the world.

All areas where people are growing businesses, be they manufacturing or other, also need investment in infrastructure by the country. As one of the greatest needs for growth is also in the people working in those businesses, and this is an area where we are falling behind, so we also need the country to ensure investment in education, housing and health so the people working in these businesses are fit to take them forward. Unless you think we should go back to the days when the people like the great philanthropist Titus Salt provided housing, education and health care provided for the working population then the government, via us, via our taxes, must invest in the people. If that is the case - you may disagree but few would - then the only question is, do those who are better off assist those who are worse off.

Point four, while I'm here:

PUBLIC OWNERSHIP
^Of railways and in the energy sector - privatisation has put profits before people.

I am personally happy with some form of public ownership of both these areas.

The railways to me work quite well already.
Apparently they are a bit more expensive than parts of Europe, but I dont consider them that expensive compared to a car.

*Those with money have always threatened to leave the country. Let them go. Some of us are fed up with being blackmailed like that.
Have you any idea how many of the population earn over thirty thousand?
Are they all going to leave?*

A sizeable number would consider it, at least for a while, in my opinion.
They are generally the ones who have travelled, and already have friends and contacts in other countries.
They are also the demographic who are not that concerned about upping sticks at least short term.

I can see doctors being some of the first to leave.

Energy - I dont know enough about. But I would imagine it would cost a huge amount of money to start buying it all back. Colossal figures.

At least anyone earning thirty thousand or more would have the option to leave!! The rest of us would be stuck in this socialist utopia!

Soon to be, the railways work quite well. Perhaps. Our local line , East Coast Mainline, was taken over by the government when the private franchisee walked away because they couldn't make a profit. The government turned it round, it became profitable, and then the franchise was given to Virgin. I don't understand what is so wrong with something profitable being kept under government control. Why can't the government take the profit? This has happened in several sectors. We take the ailing company, restore it to health at the country's expense and then let a private company take the profit. Certainly if the railways were centralised surely this nonsense about different fares etc would be a thing of the past.

Exactly, Nandalot. Look at the banks. We bailed those out courtesy of QE by Gordon Brown. Now the government is selling them back making a loss for the taxpayer.
Is that sound economics, or would it have been better to continue to make a profit for the taxpayer? East Coast Mainline given to the company that already has the West Coast Mainline? I thought the idea of breaking it up was so there was no monopoly.

Energy? Most of our utility companies are now owned by foreign companies, some of them foreign governments.
Why is it okay for the French or German governments to own our utilities but not our own?

I agree with your thinking Nandalot. The thing with the government "taking the profit" is that the money can be ploughed back in to improve the railway system - that has to be good.

I would like the water companies to be in public ownership, too, in this socialist utopia.

It isn't just that the energy companies are owned by foreign companies Jen but the jiggery pokery that goes on to ensure the actually customer focused company shows as making very little profit so negligible tax is paid.

Actually am against just saying we need growth and investment without putting to the electorate just what growth with what investment.
It seems to me gracesgran that you put it better than Corbyn. You should be up there with him. I have heard that about growth and investment from Yvette Cooper so often and never a word who is going to invest and In what and where the security is for these investments

I live in Germany and we have a coalition and that is probably the better solution to 21st century politics. I just can't imagine a government with Corbyn at the helm becoming a success, BUT he would be the better opposition.Then he doesn't have to worry about where his growth and investments are coming from. He knows he will not be PM -ever.

You hear all the time that labour don't know here they went wrong. They have short memories! They should have voted for David Miliband.

No they shouldn't.

Corbyn does say. He talks about investing in housing and energy, in small businesses to help the unemployed get back into work.
What did Cameron say we should invest in? I've just looked through the first 50 of his election promises, and they are all cuts. Not one investment. There's no growth in that.
I'm up to 75 now, and the only growth is in fracking which nobody wants, certainly not in Germany.
That's it now I've read all 100.
I prefer Corbyn's energy plans.

Oh Margaret what a thing to wish on someone .

I like the idea of coalition government too and feel that more, smaller parties may be an outcome of a Corbyn leadership - although who can say. I think this (more, smaller) would encourage PR and then the movement from one extreme to the other would not be so ... extreme

The short bits I am copying up would, I assume, be expanded on for a general election - but that is a long way ahead.

I don't know if they should have voted for David Miliband - in my opinion they had given up the soul of the party way bake when.

... and after a very nice lunch out with my mother and daughter here is point five:

DECENT HOMES FOR ALL
In public and private sectors by 2025 through a big house building programme and controlling rents

Perfect end to a good lunch.

I think this is one of my biggest wishes Jen. I have always believed most of societies ills could be cured with good housing and education.

The next one - number 6 - is:

NO MORE ILLEGAL WARS
A foreign policy that prioritises justice and assistance. Replacing Trident not with a new generation of nuclear weapons but jobs that retain the communities skills.

More sensible investment. How much was a Trident replacement going to cost?

Happy Monday and here is point seven:

A FULLY FUNDED NHS
Integrated with social care, with an end to privatisation in health

I am certainly pro the integrated service but not sure if not for profit companies do not have a part to play.

Nandalot. Yesterday morning.
Governments rarely make a profit on anything. They havent in the past.

No one says who is going to give up nuclear first.
We either become sitting ducks or there is the utopia idea of everyone giving them up at the same time.

The whole business of housing has to be looked at and a more continental solution to house building introduced. nothing is to be gained by 25,000 houses built all in a lump next to a village, with some large manufacturing/ building concern to reap in profits.
The local government has to use up land or make new land available then build the roads and install cables for internet, electricity and gas and water pipe lines and then street lighing. Then the area is parceled off into building lots of various sizes and these are bought by would-be homebuilders. Young families mostly who plan to do a bit of DIY to save money.
Would Corbyn be prepared to invest in something like that and the jobs? probably mostly Polish building workers until the apprenticeships are founded and the apprentices ready for work.
Investment money comes from taxation and as the rich pay almost as much into to the tax pot as the poor, (many of which don't pay any) then if the rich leave then there will be less money available.
I noticed the other day on TV that your Tour de France cyclist lives in Monaco.