the snap general election thread

Zxcv_Bnm

So is this 28% figure Labour's proposed CT rate, or Labour's likely poll share on June 8th?

antrobus

michaels wrote: »

I think it is a 2 in 1 - they also:
(a) get many more people to read (or at least hear about) what is in the manifesto than would have done if they had just gone ahead and published it.
(b) they get it on the news for two days, today and the day it is actually launched (when of course the Tories would have been planning a competing story to keep it out of the news agenda as much as possible)

Cynical manipulation of the public via the media reaches new lows

Somebody clearly did it for a reason. There appear to be two main options. (Although there might be others I haven't thought of.:))

(a) It might have been someone from team pro-Corbyn who hoped that the leak would allow the draft manifesto to get approved in its entirety.

(b) It might have been someone from team anti-Corbyn who hoped that the leak would wrong foot the Corbynite campaign and deny them the ability to drip feed all these exciting new polices on a daily basis to the media.

I am inclined to option B. Largely because there have been a number of Labour politicians in recent days who have gone on record stating that everything would be 'fully costed' in the manifesto, and it is clear that there is a ton of stuff that isn't costed at all.

I mean, there's a £10bn commitment to abolish student fees and introduce grants, !!!!!!, with no mention of where it's going to come from. £10 bn is 'serious money'. It's 2p on the basic rate. Maybe there's a very big sofa where Gordon Brown stuffed some emergency cash and he's ready to reveal where he's hidden the sofa.

I don't know. I struggle to understand what the Labour Party is up to these days. At least Benn had an alternative economic strategy. Granted it was a pretty stupid strategy, but it was a strategy. Now we seem to have the same objective with no strategy at all apart from spending more money.

BobQ

westernpromise wrote: »

I actually keep misreading Labour's campaign slogan as "For the many, not the Jew". ..

That says more about you that in does the Labour Party.

System

Why is Labour anti-semitic?

Thrugelmir

antrobus wrote: »

I struggle to understand what the Labour Party is up to these days.

The marxists are simply seizing the opportunity to promote their ideas. Like the Greens, all pie in the sky thinking. Even after years of being an MP, Corbyn was never appointed to Government role. One can now understand why.

westernpromise

It's amazing really. Since we last saw a manifesto like this one, the Cold War has been won, China has emerged as an economic superpower, ubiquitous computers and the internet have arrived, union membership has collapsed, coal has given way to gas, there are 27 countries in the EU rather than 12, and the Conservatives have ruled for two-thirds of the time.

Despite all this, Labour sees no reason to change a thing. What was good for the 1970s is just fine for 2017, apparently.

I agree with whoever it was who said that this manifesto is not aimed at winning the GE but the next Labour leadership election. Which makes sense in a way- so far as Corbyn's rabble are concerned polling 27% is great because it's about 26.5 points better than loony Marxist parties normally achieve.

BobQ

Fella wrote: »

You'd really think after Dianne Abbott a week ago that next time Labour sent one of their morons to be interviewed on LBC they would at least ensure they knew the very basics of what they were talking about. Having said that, this is the shadow education secretary & she appears to think "give it me, give it me" is something resembling decent spoken English so no real surprise that she is too thick to even understand the basics of her own department.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/10/angela-rayner-diane-abbott-style-car-crash-interview-education/

I do not think that this was anywhere near Abbott's example. But I guess Nick Ferrari ( a man of known political allegiance) will continue to try and trap Labour speakers on figures. All she did was say that she did not know the precise figure. Whatever figure she had given, Ferarri would have said it was wrong. Instead she said she did not have the figure to hand. Not sure what is wrong with that.

As for how she speaks, Rayner is an ordinary person from a northern community who speaks like many ordinary people speak, who left school without any qualifications, worked as a carer and got elected to Parliament. I think we should not seek to belittle her for trying to make a difference to the people she represents.

In comparison Ferrari had a privileged upbringing, private education and was invited by Cameron to be a Conservative candidate. Is it any wonder that he finds it difficult to maintain balance when faced with down to earth people like Rayner?

BobQ

Fella wrote: »

So Labour not only produce a manifesto straight from the 1970s but they don't even have the courage to release it officially. Instead they leak it & take the official line that they "don't comment on leaks" so they can gauge reaction then strip out the bits they don't think will fly.

Gotta love the transparency of their student politics do they have actual 17-y-olds dictating policy these days?

A strategy that is commonly used by the present Government....

Thrugelmir

BobQ wrote: »

I think we should not seek to belittle her for trying to make a difference to the people she represents.

That's not the issue. She would be the next Home Secretary. A job that's hopelessly out of her depth.

westernpromise

Why should Ferrari be balanced? He doesn't receive public money. The BBC does and it isn't balanced.