Labour U-Turn on the single market

steampowered

adindas wrote: »

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

I find it disappointing that - despite being given a link to a crystal clear document which is less than 2 pages - you still couldn't be bothered to have even a cursory glance at it. There's really no excuse.

Before launching into a rant criticising politicians of any party, it is worth taking a moment to check whether what you are claiming is factually correct.

If you read the document, you will see that Labour were proposing overall tax rises of £48.6 billion. Of which the proposal to raise income tax on those earning more than £80k was only ever intended to raise £6.4 million.

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.

The full paragraph stated as follows:
"Freeze TfL transport fares for four years and introduce a one-hour bus ‘Hopper’ ticket, paid for by making TfL more efficient and exploring new revenue-raising opportunities. Londoners won’t pay a penny more for their travel in 2020 than they do today."

It is quite clear to me that this is referring to TfL fares.

While I appreciate that perhaps the paragraph could have been clearer, I don't see how anyone could seriously think that commitment was intended to capture the fares for private fail services over which Mayor of London has no control. This was made quite clear by media coverage during the campaign, and indeed it is only TfL transport fares that are referred to in the detail of the manifesto.

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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why do you need to buy a travelcard for your daily commute if you are only using TfL services? Surely you would only get a travel card for a daily commute if you were intending to use both private rail and TfL services?

I live in London too. Like the vast majority of Londoners, I simply pay the TfL fares using oyster. The return is far less than a travelcard. And that is frozen.

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 ....

It seems that you have only read the headline, but not the actual article.

The article says "While individual fares will stay frozen, the cost of travelcards and the daily caps on Oyster payments may rise as they cover train fares that are not controlled by TfL."

zagfles

steampowered wrote: »

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.

I've already quoted the IFS who said in response to the manifesto: "However, their proposed plan for paying for this expansion in state activity would not work."

Perhaps that's where adindas read it, on the IFS website but in response to the overall manifesto rather than specifically in response to income tax rise on £80k+ earners.

You however state as a fact that he read it in a newspaper:
"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."

You obviously know this for certain don't you? Otherwise it would be a bit rich to accuse others of "failing to pay enough care to the facts".

steampowered

zagfles wrote: »

I've already quoted the IFS who said in response to the manifesto: "However, their proposed plan for paying for this expansion in state activity would not work."

Yes. But this is an entirely different point (which could equally be applied to the Conservative manifesto by quoting from the same link you posted). Adindas was very specific in that he was talking about the income tax proposal.

zagfles

steampowered wrote: »

Of which the proposal to raise income tax on those earning more than £80k was only ever intended to raise £6.4 million.

Wrong it's not 6.4 million, it's 6.4 billion. It's the second time you've written million when it's obviously billion - try to get your facts straight before critising others.

zagfles

steampowered wrote: »

Yes. But this is an entirely different point (which could equally be applied to the Conservative manifesto by quoting from the same link you posted). Adindas was very specific in that he was talking about the income tax proposal.

They don't say the Tory manifesto won't work, they say they haven't spelled out the cuts they'll have to make.

adindas

steampowered wrote: »

I find it disappointing that - despite being given a link to a crystal clear document which is less than 2 pages - you still couldn't be bothered to have even a cursory glance at it. There's really no excuse.

Before launching into a rant criticising politicians of any party, it is worth taking a moment to check whether what you are claiming is factually correct.

If you read the document, you will see that Labour were proposing overall tax rises of £48.6 billion. Of which the proposal to raise income tax on those earning more than £80k was only ever intended to raise £6.4 million.



The full paragraph stated as follows:
"Freeze TfL transport fares for four years and introduce a one-hour bus ‘Hopper’ ticket, paid for by making TfL more efficient and exploring new revenue-raising opportunities. Londoners won’t pay a penny more for their travel in 2020 than they do today."

It is quite clear to me that this is referring to TfL fares.

While I appreciate that perhaps the paragraph could have been clearer, I don't see how anyone could seriously think that commitment was intended to capture the fares for private fail services over which Mayor of London has no control. This was made quite clear by media coverage during the campaign, and indeed it is only TfL transport fares that are referred to in the detail of the manifesto.


Why do you need to buy a travelcard for your daily commute if you are only using TfL services? Surely you would only get a travel card for a daily commute if you were intending to use both private rail and TfL services?

I live in London too. Like the vast majority of Londoners, I simply pay the TfL fares using oyster. The return is far less than a travelcard. And that is frozen.

It seems that you have only read the headline, but not the actual article.

The article says "While individual fares will stay frozen, the cost of travelcards and the daily caps on Oyster payments may rise as they cover train fares that are not controlled by TfL."

Utter tosh.
Do not you know for people living in London who are commuting and traveling within Zone 1&2 daily,who have enough spare cash, will buy annual travel card because it is cheaper than to buy PAYG with daily cap !! The exception of course if you did not have enough amount of cash ready to buy an annual travel card but that is entirely a different matter and you are fully in control.

This is an MSE forum. Please show the forum your math, how people like me living in London get an annual travel card cheaper than buying Oyster PAYG relying on daily cap after London Mayor's manifesto regarding public transport. please show how I won’t pay a penny more for my travel in 2020 than I do today. I am waiting for your calculation

“Sadiq Khan’s manifesto specifically said that Londoners won’t pay a penny more for their travel in 2020 than they do today. No ifs no buts"

[FONT=&quot] I am a Londoner and pay my council tax in London. Like many other people londoners; since his manifesto, they have seen their annual travel card ( saved Oystercard) increased last year and will keep increasing this year and many years to come !!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is what some politicians do; [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot] they will say everything what people wanted to hear [/FONT]once elected find a way (sometimes shamefully because it is too obvious) to wind it up. Unfortunately there are still a lot of people out there could be fooled with this sort of thing.

[/FONT] I am waiting someone will complain to the guardian.or ICO if you think their statement is incorrect. Please do it and post the guardian response here.

adindas

zagfles wrote: »

Wrong it's not 6.4 million, it's 6.4 billion. It's the second time you've written million when it's obviously billion - try to get your facts straight before critising others.

Lol. It looks like Diane Abbott when she quoted the cost of adding 10.000 policemen ......

Keep in mind at that time Diane Abbott was Labour Shadow Home minister.

HornetSaver

hallmark wrote: »

Don't be fooled by anybody trying to claim Labour ran a good campaign.

Tbey did run a good campaign, and people like you are directly responsible for the constitutional difficulty we've found ourselves in since the election. The fact is that Jeremy Corbyn's policy platform represents Labour's least electable one in living memory. I'm not forgetting 1983 by the way.

And yet, due to the complacency and sneering of those who with very good reason find the prospect of him running the country utterly ridiculous, Corbyn's Labour came within a relatively small number of seats of being able to form a minority government with the support of nationalists. Attacking someone and simply arrogantly assuming that anyone with a brain will obviously agree with you without further explanation may be a lot of fun, but it doesn't convince people to GOTV for the alternative, and frankly is more likely to rile up those who would otherwise have been apathetic to vote for him. This actually appears to have happened with regards to the youth vote.

The result they should have got would have been something comparable to the Tories in 1997. The fact that this didn't happen is the fault of those who simply assumed it was a done deal.

movilogo

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

Translating this to common man's language

1. There will be free movement of people from EU
2. More people will increase burden on NHS, schools, infrastructure
3. This will create the wage low
4. These immigrants will vote Labour (when they can) - which will restart the process from #1

Corbyn is firmly in remain camp and if he can, he would cancel Brexit.

Herzlos

movilogo wrote: »

Translating this to common man's language

1. There will be free movement of people from EU
2. More people will increase burden on NHS, schools, infrastructure
3. This will create the wage low
4. These immigrants will vote Labour (when they can) - which will restart the process from #1

Corbyn is firmly in remain camp and if he can, he would cancel Brexit.

Not at all. Translating it to make it clear; Corbyn won't trash the economy to pretend to keep to a made up immigration limit in order to keep the frothers quiet.

1. He's talking about proving movement where the economy requires it
2. He's talking about actually spending money on infrastructure
3. He's talking about increasing the minimum wage
4. They probably will be more likely to vote labour, as that's the trend amongst under 45s, and most immigrants are likely to be younger.