funding Labour manifesto promises

Labour will collect taxes properly from the likes of amazon etc & many of the newspapers which is why they loathe Corbyn, the daily mail owner for example, is a non-dom plus has offshore wealth, ditto Sky news & others, that's why you won't get a balanced appraisal in most of the press.
state ownership is better value because we don't have to pay shareholders, so that money can go to front line services. Labour managed the economy fine, but last time they bailed out the banks, which most agree was a good idea

Can you give a link, please, Whitwavemark2

My problem is not the policies but the delivery. There has not been an economically competent Labour government in my lifetime and the industries that I would welcome back into community ownership I do not want to see back in state ownership because they were so badly run and inefficient last time they were state run.

This is big. 163 economists and academics have backed Labour's spending plans in that well known Trotskyist rag - the Financial Times.

Trains running on time? Not in my experience.

They could, of course, just cancel HS2.

so much simpler

This is how our NHS will be funded
Our social care will be funded
Our infrastructure will be built
Our public services supported
Our country will be saved

M0nica you have been lucky. The percentage of trains arriving on time for some companies is less than 50%. And none manage 100% the highest figure is for trains arriving within 15 mins of expected time which is in the region of 90%.
dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/performance/passenger-rail-performance/
If these are good performance figures I dread to think what bad ones must be like.

trisher, all I can say is that as a London and then outer London commuter the trains I travelled in were unreliable, late and dirty antiquated old stock that should have been replaced decades before.

I travel now between York and Oxford, 2 different lines and also Oxford to France and Germany and I have never had any problem with travelling with 2 different rail franchises. The trains now running are modern, and they run to time. They are not constantly cancelled because the train or the one in front has broken down,

As I said, I agree with you that the railways should not be run as they are now, but there are many other ways of running a public interest industry without it being run by the state, which has a very poor management and investment history.

MaizieD, if we just printed more money inflation would go through the roof.

Nobody reads what I actually say, do they?

The danger of inflation only arises if most of the money issued is not returned to the government by taxation, and, if there are not enough resources (goods, services etc) available to purchase. I don't think we're likely to run out of either in the foreseeable future as there is so much investment needed in all sorts of areas.

Try reading some Keynes or economics based on his writings.

gimms.org.uk/mmtbasics/

They haven't been here yet.

MaizieD, if we just printed more money inflation would go through the roof.

Where is Plaid Cmyru in all this, well yesterday just by chance I ended up having coffee with a group who were out canvassing and I was very impressed. Down to earth and sensible.

M0nica I have travelled all over the country by train all of my life- I don't drive. The service provided was adequate and in many ways excellent when we had British Rail. Buying a ticket was simple,getting on a train was easy and you could travel anywhere without having to check if your ticket was valid for that train because it might be a different company running it. Some franchises have proved unworkable. Some are profitable and the money from those should be reinvested in services and not pocketed by a few. There may have been problems with BR but they are as nothing compared with the problems now.

I have a great deal of faith in Labours Manifesto. The Tory Government have tripled our debt and all the while imposed severe austerity that was put in place to clear that debt. Where has it all gone? Certainly not in public services!

Yes - the manifesto will cost a good deal of money - but there are clear plans and strategies in place to mitigate and pay off what is borrowed.

As a country we CANNOT go on with more of the same. As a people we have never been so despondent and divided. Tory polices just divide more. I am a tax payer and homeowner. I am no where near the £80K bracket - but I would still pay out more per week to safeguard the future of this country and rebuild it. It needs to be rebuilt!

It was a wry smile at the irony Callistemon

Why amusing humptydumpty

There are faults now with the rail service, yes, but I think that the point is that re-nationalisation is not the answer as, when i was nationalised, the service was appalling.
And the trains were disgustingly filthy.

M0nica, your comment about commuting to work in the SE was most amusing - remember those problems this year with the commercially-run trains in the SE? I'm sure those people attempting to commute to work on Southern have had at least as many problems as you had under nationalisation, in fact my daughter found that some companies in London were reluctant to recruit people living in the SE who relied on the trains to get to work!

Seems two of Britain's biggest power companies have shifted the ownership of their businesses offshore to protect against the threat of nationalisation by a Labour government!

Once they’ve gone they won’t come back.

trisher you are looking at the past through rose-tinted spectacles. Under nationalisation the railways were starved of investment, trains were unreliable, dirty and ran late. I was a commuter in the south east and I had to get a train half an hour earlier than necessary to get to work on time.

As an electricity customer in a rural area in the busy south east, we had endless power cuts. If you wanted a phone you could wait years. Energy prices were high and again investment was low.

Having said that I do believe that some industries should be in public ownership - and that includes gas, electricity and water, but old style nationalisation led, almost without exception, to poor management and a lack of proper investment.

People may not have been lining their pocket sbut just as much money was wasted running poor, inefficient service.

I can remember contacting British Gas at this time of year at the start of a cold winter. We were about to move into a house that had stood empty for 6 months and we could not light the boiler. I explained that I had 2 small children, the youngest only 6 months old. No matter what I said they said they could not possibly visit to fix the boiler in under a fortnight. Thankfully, DH dickered with it and finally managed to start it.

I don't think you can count LG.

^ the Labour Parties Manifesto ??^

Have you read it, GG13?

GG13 Then unicorn and rainbows were real when I grew up! Railways were nationalised- so you didn't find your self unable to get on a train because although it's going where you want to go your ticket is from another company. Electricity, Gas and water were nationalised so no one was lining their pockets. Education was free and supported by grants which enabled the poorest to access it. It was the time when social mobility was at its highest. Council houses provided good accommodation for families at a reasonable cost because it was recognised that poor living conditions were responsible for poor health. And the National health service provided free care. Roll on the same for my GCs!

Unicorns and promises of rainbows pretty much sums up the Labour Parties Manifesto ??

Back to the thread title anyone?
Just watching the political pundits chat, they seem to think Labour have over reached themselves with their promises and think voters will be put off....few believe in their costings.

Oh just leave it for heavens sake, you had a comment deleted and so did I.
The difference is that I accept it....you don’t.
GG13 was quite right.

Callistemon either my general remark was in reply to GG13 general remark "... however wealth at any level does seem to be an issue for Labour Party supporters!!!" or she was deliberately insulting me in the first instance. She certainly appears very cross with all those exclamation marks.

If that how she wrote it, as a personal insult, then she seems to believe she may hold a view about the extreme disparity of wealth in this country but I may not. But I am sure that cannot be true, can it?