Labour U-Turn on the single market

hallmark

& yet it barely get's a mention. Such lovely unbiased coverage

"A senior Labour MP has thrown the party’s Brexit policy into further confusion by claiming the party backs staying in a “reformed” EU single market.

Barry Gardiner hinted that Labour could switch to supporting a softer Brexit – one day after John McDonnell, the shadow Chancellor, ruled out a rethink on single market membership.

To add to the confusion, Jeremy Corbyn said only “there will have to be an arrangement made” when asked the same question yesterday."

Don't be fooled by anybody trying to claim Labour ran a good campaign. It was littered with stuff like this, their campaign was a shambles. Probably why they won so few seats.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-brexit-policy-eu-single-market-barry-gardiner-reformed-european-union-senior-mp-jeremy-corbyn-a7785506.html

adindas

hallmark wrote: »

& yet it barely get's a mention. Such lovely unbiased coverage

"A senior Labour MP has thrown the party’s Brexit policy into further confusion by claiming the party backs staying in a “reformed” EU single market.

Barry Gardiner hinted that Labour could switch to supporting a softer Brexit – one day after John McDonnell, the shadow Chancellor, ruled out a rethink on single market membership.

To add to the confusion, Jeremy Corbyn said only “there will have to be an arrangement made” when asked the same question yesterday."

Don't be fooled by anybody trying to claim Labour ran a good campaign. It was littered with stuff like this, their campaign was a shambles. Probably why they won so few seats.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-brexit-policy-eu-single-market-barry-gardiner-reformed-european-union-senior-mp-jeremy-corbyn-a7785506.html

Politicians will say everything what people wanted to hear in order to get elected even they are fully aware it is not going to work due to limited resources.

You could always get attention and people might want to vote for you when you said
- You will not increase or you slash the tax
- Increase / maintain benefit
- Free tuition fee for eveyone
- promising extra money for school, healthcare
- Adding more policemen

But where does all of the money come from ??

Well "Raising tax a little bit more" when asked they have no idea how much it is going to cost.

There are a huge amount of money needed. How much extra money they could get from taxing people earning £80k+ ????
Well it is only about 5% of the taxpayers will be paying more tax according to this

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/06/labour-tax-80000-general-election-promise

Utter nonsense. Institute of fiscal study has warned it is not going to work by just raising tax on income of 80K+

Probably because the way the labour politicians are estimating the cost just like the way Diane Abbott (who was still shadow home cabinet at that time) was estimating the cost of adding 10.000 policemen...

"When asked how much the policy would cost, Ms Abbott told LBC Radio: "Well, erm... if we recruit the 10,000 policemen and women over a four-year period, we believe it will be about £300,000".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/02/labours-police-promise-tatters-diane-abbott-suggests-officers/

You will not forget:
What liberal democrat under Nick Cleg was saying about the tuition fee ?

What Sadiq Khan was saying about London Public Transport in his manifesto.
"Londoners won't pay a penny more for their travel in 2020 than they do today. .

Well I am living in London (not greater London) and I have seen my annual travel card increased last year and will see increase this year.

Many people living in London are comuting every day using annual travel and they have seen their annual travel card have been going up since he got elected and will keep raising every year.

Unfortunately they are a lot of people out there still believe this sort of thing.

The_Last_Username

adindas wrote: »

Politicians will say everything what people wanted to hear in order to get elected even they are fully aware it is not going to work due to limited resources.
......................................

Unfortunately they are a lot of people out there still believe this sort of thing.

Quite so, around twelve million of them it seems from last week.
No wonder so many don't want more grammar schools; future enhanced educational abilities would see more potential voters being able to understand simple arithmetic.

This would have the effect of these potential voters being able to understand when figures do not relate to proposed plans as well as increased comprehension of intentional misdirection in statements, thus leading to potentially reduced votes for those promulgating what are realistically no more than pie-in-the-sky dreams.

steampowered

Adindas: You are being extremely unfair on politicians who, for the most part, try their best to do a good job under difficult circumstances.

You are playing fast and loose with the facts, or just getting the facts wrong, in an attempt to make politicians look worse than they are.

adindas wrote: »

How much extra money they could get from people earning £80k+ ????

The answer is £6.4 million.

If you wanted to know the answer to this, you could simply read Labour's short costing document. Please read it. The main part is only 2 pages long.

Utter nonsense. Institute of fiscal study has warned it is not going to work by just raising tax on income of 80K+

This is factually wrong. You have misinterpreted something you've read in a newspaper and jumped to an incorrect conclusion by failing to pay enough care to the facts.

What the IFS paper on Labour's plan to raise income tax for more than £80k actually says is as follows: "Based on the available evidence this looks a little on the optimistic side, but it is entirely possible.".

Probably because the way the labour politicians are estimating the cost just like the way Diane Abbott (who was still shadow home cabinet at that time) was estimating the cost of adding 10.000 policemen...

That was a mistake and you know it. The actual cost is, again clearly stated in Labour's costing document for anyone who can be bothered to read 2 pages, as £0.3 billion.

What Sadiq Khan was saying about London Public Transport in his manifesto.
"Londoners won't pay a penny more for their travel in 2020 than they do today. .

Well I am living in London (not greater London) and I have seen my annual travel card increased last year and will see increase this year.

The Mayor of London only has control over TfL prices. The Mayor of London does not control the fares of trains outside the TfL network. Surely you must know this.

You missed out the sentence from the exact paragraph you are quoting from which clearly says Khan intended to "Freeze TfL transport fares for four years". It is very, very clear that is what he was talking about.

Masomnia

steampowered wrote: »

The Mayor of London only has control over TfL prices. The Mayor of London does not control the fares of trains outside the TfL network. Surely you must know this.

You missed out the sentence from the exact paragraph you are quoting from which clearly says Khan intended to "Freeze TfL transport fares for four years". It is very, very clear that is what he was talking about.

Really, because a travelcard going from say Highbury and Islington to Oxford Circus on the Victoria Line has gone up. Pretty sure that's on the TfL network.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

hallmark wrote: »

"A senior Labour MP has thrown the party’s Brexit policy into further confusion by claiming the party backs staying in a “reformed” EU single market.

Barry Gardiner hinted that Labour could switch to supporting a softer Brexit – one day after John McDonnell, the shadow Chancellor, ruled out a rethink on single market membership.

To add to the confusion, Jeremy Corbyn said only “there will have to be an arrangement made” when asked the same question yesterday."

There's no confusion.

Labour will support a soft Brexit.

Corbyn has always been crystal clear that he wants to prioritise jobs and the economy over arbitrary immigration targets.

If most people couldn't read between the lines on that one the population is even more naive than I thought they were.

Masomnia

Starmer seems pro-single market. McDonnell against. Corbyn can't seem to decide.

steampowered

Masomnia wrote: »

Really, because a travelcard going from say Highbury and Islington to Oxford Circus on the Victoria Line has gone up. Pretty sure that's on the TfL network.

The cost of a trip from Highbury & Islington (zone 2) to Oxford circus (zone 1) is £2.90 peak or £2.40 off-peak. That has been frozen.

There is no reason to buy a travelcard for that trip. A zone 1-2 travelcard costs £12.30.

Travelcards include access to all public transport in London, including national rail. The Mayor of London does not have the power to freeze travel card fares because these include private train companies, whose fares are determined by central government.

zagfles

steampowered wrote: »

This is factually wrong. You have misinterpreted something you've read in a newspaper and jumped to an incorrect conclusion by failing to pay enough care to the facts.

What the IFS paper on Labour's plan to raise income tax for more than £80k actually says is as follows: "Based on the available evidence this looks a little on the optimistic side, but it is entirely possible.".

You seem to have missed or ignored the next bit which says "However, it is also possible that the policy would raise nothing."

In this press release which deals with the full manifesto, not just the policy to raise taxes on high earners, the IFS are unequivocal in saying Labour's plan "would not work".

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9259

Labour by contrast is proposing very big increases in tax, a bigger increase in spending and, as a result, borrowing continuing around its current share of national income. They would increase spending to its highest sustained level in more than 30 years and taxes to their highest ever peacetime level. Even so the state under Labour would be no bigger than that in many advanced economies. However, their proposed plan for paying for this expansion in state activity would not work. They would not raise as much money as they claim even in the short run, let alone the long run. And there is no way that tens of billions of pounds of tax rises would affect only a small group at the very top as their rhetoric suggests. If they want the advantages of a bigger state they should be willing to candidly set out the consequences – higher taxation affecting broad segments of the population.

adindas

steampowered wrote: »

Adindas: You are being extremely unfair on politicians who, for the most part, try their best to do a good job under difficult circumstances.

You are playing fast and loose with the facts, or just getting the facts wrong, in an attempt to make politicians look worse than they are.

The answer is £6.4 million.

If you wanted to know the answer to this, you could simply read Labour's short costing document. Please read it. The main part is only 2 pages long.



This is factually wrong. You have misinterpreted something you've read in a newspaper and jumped to an incorrect conclusion by failing to pay enough care to the facts.

What the IFS paper on Labour's plan to raise income tax for more than £80k actually says is as follows: "Based on the available evidence this looks a little on the optimistic side, but it is entirely possible.".


That was a mistake and you know it. The actual cost is, again clearly stated in Labour's costing document for anyone who can be bothered to read 2 pages, as £0.3 billion.


The Mayor of London only has control over TfL prices. The Mayor of London does not control the fares of trains outside the TfL network. Surely you must know this.

You missed out the sentence from the exact paragraph you are quoting from which clearly says Khan intended to "Freeze TfL transport fares for four years". It is very, very clear that is what he was talking about.

Yes indeed many people believe that £6.4 million will be enough to fund all of labor program as reflected in the election result , ehmmmm
Regarding Sadiq Khan Read here:

[I]“Sadiq Khan’s manifesto specifically said that Londoners won’t pay a penny more for their travel in 2020 than they do today. "[/I]

There were no ifs or buts in that statement.

Well I am living in London and I have seen my travel card increased last year and will keep increasing this year and many years to come !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/nov/18/tfl-fares-to-be-frozen-for-four-years

I will definitely believe the guardian then random people on this MSE ....

I am not going to continue this pointless conversation. But If someone knows that the guardian statement is incorrect please send the complain to the guardian or report it to ICO. Waiting news from someone here who will actually do that.

steampowered

zagfles wrote: »

You seem to have missed or ignored the next bit which says "However, it is also possible that the policy would raise nothing."

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9259

Yes, but that is only mentioned as one possible outcome. The verdict of the IFS is as stated in my post.

But that is not what adindas said. He said the "Institute of fiscal study has warned it is not going to work" in specific reference to the proposal for a slight raise income tax on people earning more than £80k. This is the piece which is factually wrong.