Support NeoGAF

[jelly]

Was the leak deliberate?

Would be a shame if the Tories are tweaking theirs because of it.

It sounds pretty good to be honest, dream land for some but heart is in the right place at least.

Labour need a day in the life sort of campaign, show families, people living that manifesto, going to work, the train is there on time, the kids get dropped off at childcare, the family books a holiday, positivety about their wage slip, boss at work announcing a wage increase, NHS utopia. Sell the future that people can place themselves in.

 

[Halph n Halph]

Care to give any examples?

Tuition fees abolition.
This just encourages universities to offer 10 a penny degrees in subjects of no real economic value to the country, yet creates a sustainable business model for the institution at the expense of the tax payer.
It also offers no incentive to a student to succeed and value their time and opportunity on offer at university.
A better system would be a debt write off on successful attainment of a high value degree.

New towns.
I've never been a fan of social engineering and I've been to skelmersdale and other new towns .

Fracking ban .
It's a self reliant source of energy until renewable is upto capacity.
The scaremongering is not backed up by evidence when proper safety precautions are implemented.

Corporation tax increases.
Evidence suggests the treasury can increase revenue by cutting not increasing and I'm afraid it would encourage companies to relocate .

Some of the self employment regulation could hinder me now and in the future.

 

[RobotNinjaHornets]

I am so happy that this is being explicitly said

 

[amanset]

Rent controls messed up Sweden's housing market. Housing is expensive and apparently there's a 20 year wait. Considered relocating there in a few years but nope. Not when it's like that.

That's mixing up several different things. The wait (which frankly is only Stockholm) is true, but it is for social housing (which has much less of a stigma than in the likes of the UK and also isn't means tested). A huge problem there is social housing being turned into ones you can buy and the lack of anyone building more social housing.

Now the cost of housing is due to no one building more so market forces increase the prices. My flat has over tripled in value since I moved there in (I think) 2002.

Then there's the subletting market. There are very strict controls on who can sublet, so as to stop superlandlords owning lots of homes. In general if you can or can not sublet is down to the housing association the home is part of and even then it can be no longer than two years. A costant fixture of being a Stockholmer is your Facebook feed being full of someone who needs to move again after six months because their landlord cannot rent their place out for longer.

But what it all comes down to is a lack places being built. Add to that the London-like situation where the palces they do build are far too expensive for many people (although not to the extent of London). There was a huge development of Hammarbysjöstad about ten years ago but then they couldn't get anyone to live there as it was so expensive.

So yes, currently the Stockholm market is pretty messed up, but to put it at a simple "rent control" is purposefully ignoring so many factors so as to try and push a political agenda.

 

[nitronite]

The idea is fine I just think compassion would go down like a lead balloon. People would read it as more handouts and immigrants probably.

I have to disagree slightly, respectfully. There's a reason why conservatives often try to brand themselves as 'compassionate conservatives': they are rightly or wrongly perceived to lack it. Playing up that perception, in addition to hammering home disability cuts, number of homeless, etc. (all things Corbyn talks about at PMQs anyway, so it won't seem like a sudden 180), would do more good than bad, in my opinion.

 

[*Splinter]

New towns.
I've never been a fan of social engineering and I've been to skelmersdale and other new towns.

Hmm, this is the single policy that pretty much guarantees my vote, but then I've never looked at examples of where it's been implemented in the past. Sounds like I should do more research here.


The self-employment stuff sounds, much like the zero hour contracts, like Labour's policy attempts to oversimplify. I assume it's supposed to tackle things like Uber?

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

I have to disagree slightly, respectfully. There's a reason why conservatives often try to brand themselves as 'compassionate conservatives': they are rightly or wrongly perceived to lack it. Playing up that perception, in addition to hammering home disability cuts, number of homeless, etc. (all things Corbyn talks about at PMQs anyway, so it won't seem like a sudden 180), would do more good than harm, in my opinion.

Fair enough, you could be right. I'm probably too cynical these days.

 

[Audioboxer]

Tuition fees abolition.
This just encourages universities to offer 10 a penny degrees in subjects of no real economic value to the country, yet creates a sustainable business model for the institution at the expense of the tax payer.
It also offers no incentive to a student to succeed and value their time and opportunity on offer at university.
A better system would be a debt write off on successful attainment of a high value degree.

???

Scotland's students, on the whole, do just fine. An incentive to succeed? How about getting a degree you enjoy and a job you'll enjoy? Why isn't that good enough?

That statement reads kind of similar to just saying a benefits system means everyone who's in it doesn't value work. Blame the majority for the potential shortcomings of a minority.

There's always going to be some whacky degrees, but the majority of the population don't go near them because there is near zero long-term prospects. If anything some of the more outrageous stuff ends up being locked being private or elite Universities for students of parents with a shit load of £££ so it really doesn't matter what their kids get a degree in.

Plus it's for pressure to be put on the Universities/faculties for course roll outs, not the students.

 

[Preezy]

I am so happy that this is being explicitly said

That all sounds great but then I realise a vote for them is a vote for Diance fucking Abbott.

I just can't do it.

 

[PJV3]

That all sounds great but then I realise a vote for them is a vote for Diance fucking Abbott.

I just can't do it.

Can you name a political party without a complete berk in it, libdems don't count as they could fit in my lounge, and even they had Lembit Opik.

 

[nitronite]

That all sounds great but then I realise a vote for them is a vote for Diance fucking Abbott.

I just can't do it.

inb4 they won't make false promises on immigration numbers because Diane Abbott can't remember them.

 

[Preezy]

Can you name a political party without a complete berk in it, libdems don't count as they could fit in my lounge, and even they had Lembit Opik.

No I can't, sadly. MPs just don't seem like normal humans, they're all so fucking dreadful.

 

[RobotNinjaHornets]

That all sounds great but then I realise a vote for them is a vote for Diance fucking Abbott.

I just can't do it.

Diane Abbott has to put up with so much fucking abuse because she's a black, socialist woman, and if you think going against her is more important than voting for a party that is now *explicitly* pro-immigration for anti-racist purposes, you need to get the fuck over yourself

 

[Preezy]

Diane Abbott has to put up with so much fucking abuse because she's a black, socialist woman, and if you think going against her is more important than voting for a party that is now *explicitly* pro-immigration for anti-racist purposes, you need to get the fuck over yourself

I don't care what her gender or race is thank you very much. I listen to what she has to say and can't believe she's a member of Parliament, she's an absolute idiot of the highest order and shouldn't be anywhere near the decision making of a government.

 

[nitronite]

Diane Abbott has to put up with so much fucking abuse because she's a black, socialist woman, and if you think going against her is more important than voting for a party that is now *explicitly* pro-immigration for anti-racist purposes, you need to get the fuck over yourself

You're obviously partly right, but recent interviews don't help AT ALL.

 

[Mr. Sam]

Abbott is as impeccably educated as anybody in Parliament and has three decades of experience as an MP, but you wouldn't know it whenever she opens her mouth.

 

[Theonik]

Tuition fees abolition.
This just encourages universities to offer 10 a penny degrees in subjects of no real economic value to the country, yet creates a sustainable business model for the institution at the expense of the tax payer.
It also offers no incentive to a student to succeed and value their time and opportunity on offer at university.
A better system would be a debt write off on successful attainment of a high value degree.

Considering the fact that 2/3rds of students never pay their debts that's already how it works. In practice you cannot expect the less successful graduates to pay, so the burden falls on the successful ones. In the first place paying for education has not incentivised people to get better degrees any more than before, just excluded the less fortunate ones from getting educated. Moreover part of the premise is to allow people to retrain, which will be vital if the UK workforce wishes to remain competitive with the changing nature of the global economy.

As for universities incentive to offer bad courses? Are you for real? There is very few people actually going near bad courses, not because of cost. Because it means you end up at McDonald's.

 

[nitronite]

I don't care what her gender or race is thank you very much. I listen to what she has to say and can't believe she's a member of Parliament, she's an absolute idiot of the highest order and shouldn't be anywhere near the decision making of a government.

I think you'll be disappointed in most Labour MPs then: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-19801666

 

[TimmmV]

Tuition fees abolition.
This just encourages universities to offer 10 a penny degrees in subjects of no real economic value to the country, yet creates a sustainable business model for the institution at the expense of the tax payer.
It also offers no incentive to a student to succeed and value their time and opportunity on offer at university.
A better system would be a debt write off on successful attainment of a high value degree.

Sorry but so much of this is wrong

The only fair way to deal with it is to make education free and tax higher earners more.

At the moment we have the ridiculous notion where people leave university with this enormous debt that lower earners never pay off, middle earners pay off about 20 years later, and high earners pay it off really quickly and suffer the least from interest (as it is just taken as a % from salary above a certain amount). Its regressive and unfair.

Plus it just enforces the whole STEM bias, which is a nonsense too. It would be a huge shame if people stopped doing English/History/Politics/whatever degrees just because they're of "no economic value"

I don't care what her gender or race is thank you very much. I listen to what she has to say and can't believe she's a member of Parliament, she's an absolute idiot of the highest order and shouldn't be anywhere near the decision making of a government.

Equally, you could say this about Boris in the Conservatives too (well, apart from being black or a woman, but he still regularly comes out with absolute nonsense)

The point is that it's silly to discount a party as large as Labour/Conservative because you don't like one MP

 

[Jackpot]

That all sounds great but then I realise a vote for them is a vote for Diance fucking Abbott.

I just can't do it.

Unless she's your MP your vote isn't for Abbot. Please learn about the system of rule for the country you live in.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

even they had Lembit Opik.

Will confirm, Lembit Opik is a bit weird.

We'll hopefully have lots more oddball people after this election. Several knights, too!

 

[Meadows]

Some polls from today. Analysis below:

---

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 46% (-1)
LAB: 30% (+2)
LDEM: 11% (-)
UKIP: 5% (-1)

(via @YouGov / 09 - 10 May)
Chgs. w/ 05 May

---

Westminster voting intention:

CON 48% (+1)
LAB 31% (+1)
LDEM 8% (-2)
UKIP 5% (-)
GRN 2% (-)

(via @PanelbaseMD / 05 - 09 May)

---

(note, this is UK-wide, haven't had the time to look at NI, Sco or Wales).

Labour:

There has been a recent improvement in their polling position. They've upticked a couple of % in the last two weeks or so, from around 28% to 30%. This is a decent foundation for Corbyn, but even with this baby step improvement, it would take a lot more to get the kind of momentum (heh) needed to stop May from getting a majority - especially given the Cons continue to grow in their performance. If Corbyn's aim is to improve on the 2015 figure (in terms of % and not seats) then this looks to be a distinct possibility.

Conservatives:

Their rise seems to have tailed off into stable figure in the 48% range. Given that one of their main banana peels (election expenses) is out of the way with seemingly little harm, it's hard to see how they can lose this election from here. While some may point to the polls/odds having been wrong before, we do have a set of the best polling figures money can buy - the local election results, which show a clear national trend towards the Tories that goes at least some way to validating the 48% figure. The Conservatives are going to come out of this with AT LEAST an improvement of their majority, unless something completely insane happens.

Lib Dems:

They will be really disappointed given the wave of optimism they had following a few good by-elections. The TV debates have been a great tool for them in the past and the lack of one will really hurt their ability to make in-roads - especially with a new leader.

It looks as though they will improve on their disastrous 2015 results, but probably only by a couple of seats and %.

UKIP:

RIP

Greens:

Again, hurt by the lack of a TV debate and our awful electoral system. They will probably lose some of their vote share, possibly down from 3.8% to just under 3%, but that doesn't really matter given they will almost certainly retain their seat in Brighton.

They have also been hurt by Labour's lurch to the left, which - given Corbyn's past as a left activist and CND campaigner - has almost UKIP-ed the Greens, who would find it hard to disagree with any of his policies. I wouldn't be surprised if any progress Labour make in terms of vote share comes almost exclusively from the Greens.

 

[nitronite]

Unless she's your MP your vote isn't for Abbot. Please learn about the system of rule for the country you live in.

That's true, but it's also the case that a vote for a Labour MP could in some reality result in a Labour majority, which would lead to a cabinet where Diane Abbott is Home Secretary.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

The weird thing with the recent polls is that the local elections indicated that the LD vote base is up about the 18% mark - that's always been my view of a "maxed out" LD campaign of about where we could get this election.

So as it stands my hunch is that Yougov are really close to right right now, but I think our ultimate percentage will be decided by the manifestos and the TV debates/town halls/interviews.

 

[Preezy]

Unless she's your MP your vote isn't for Abbot. Please learn about the system of rule for the country you live in.

She actually IS my MP, as it happens, but thanks for the condescension.

 

[PJV3]

That's true, but it's also the case that a vote for a Labour MP could in some reality result in a Labour majority, which would lead to a cabinet where Diane Abbott is Home Secretary.

Only if reality is another universe or a meteor landing on the Conservative conference.

 

[RobotNinjaHornets]

Equally, you could say this about Boris in the Conservatives too (well, apart from being black or a woman, but he still regularly comes out with absolute nonsense)

The point is that it's silly to discount a party as large as Labour/Conservative because you don't like one MP

Not to mention how much more difficult life will be for Abbott. Imagine having a constant stream of people telling you that you shouldn't have your job or worse, imagine the toll that would take on your mental health, and yet she's kept going for 30 years. The amount of strength that has to take is incredible, and I will always show absolute solidarity with her

 

[Halph n Halph]

Hmm, this is the single policy that pretty much guarantees my vote, but then I've never looked at examples of where it's been implemented in the past. Sounds like I should do more research here.


The self-employment stuff sounds, much like the zero hour contracts, like Labour's policy attempts to oversimplify. I assume it's supposed to tackle things like Uber?

Tbh it's more the fact that they allowed radical ideas when planning some of these places. Skelmersdale was designed with the idea that people wouldn't really need to leave and what they ended up with was a huge network of roads and pedestrian tunnels linking islands of social and private housing and a social hub ( a big concrete box of shops) .
It has no soul , no real sense that it's even there other than the fact that it is and your in it.
It seemed to be designed with the idea that you don't need to leave without giving it any reasons to stay

Conspiracy theorists will tell you that in the 1960s a secret government experiment called Mind Reader involved placing an “Aspiration Dispersal Field” generator in a mineshaft near Skem. The generator transmitted a subliminal hum via a network of stone monoliths placed around the town, the purpose of which was to drain the citizens of any kind of material aspiration.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...skelmersdale-magnetic-north-housing-new-towns

 

[Huw_Dawson]

She actually IS my MP, as it happens, but thanks for the condescension.

Good God.

 

[Meadows]

Not to mention how much more difficult life will be for Abbott. Imagine having a constant stream of people telling you that you shouldn't have your job or worse, imagine the toll that would take on your mental health, and yet she's kept going for 30 years. The amount of strength that has to take is incredible, and I will always show absolute solidarity with her

Maybe, just maybe, it's OK to think that both Boris Johnson and Diane Abbott aren't fit to be in Westminster?

Has Abbott had to face more abuse? Yes. Has she had it harder? Yes. Is there an element of racism and sexism about it? Yes. Is she still really, really incompetent? Yes.

It's OK to allow for enough nuance to feel sorry for her, accept that BoJo has a privilege in this situation and also acknowledge that there is a degree of racism towards Abbott while also thinking they're both absolutely shite.

 

[Miles X]

Diane Abbott has to put up with so much fucking abuse because she's a black, socialist woman, and if you think going against her is more important than voting for a party that is now *explicitly* pro-immigration for anti-racist purposes, you need to get the fuck over yourself

Pathetic. Automatically calling the race card for her fuck ups of late. Did you not hear that radio interview?

 

[Preezy]

Not to mention how much more difficult life will be for Abbott. Imagine having a constant stream of people telling you that you shouldn't have your job or worse, imagine the toll that would take on your mental health, and yet she's kept going for 30 years. The amount of strength that has to take is incredible, and I will always show absolute solidarity with her

I trust you also show absolute solidarity to Donald Trump as he's shown incredible strength to remain in office for over 100 days with people constantly questioning his credibility and taking the piss out of his beautiful hair?

 

[Zaph]

That's true, but it's also the case that a vote for a Labour MP could in some reality result in a Labour majority, which would lead to a cabinet where Diane Abbott is Home Secretary.

Our Home Secretary was Theresa fucking May.

Abbott is a mess and could also have a problem with alcohol (as does half of Westminster) - but I'm still not sure she would be worse than May.

This is how the Tories get you. Our country only desires the appearance of competence rather than specifically looking at accomplishments and failures. All they do is find the nearest upper-middle class, middle aged white person to repeat the same talking points and Bob's your uncle - that person must be competent.

 

[PJV3]

I don't think Diane has her heart in it anymore, it looks like she is defending Jeremy more than anything else.

She isn't the same woman from a few years back, she's slow and looks like she's thinking of other stuff.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Labour's current Shadow Cabinet is essentially irrelevant, remember. In the incredibly unlikely event Labour did win the election and form the government, then suddenly all of the sulkers and tantrum-throwers would be immediately back on board, and Corbyn would have a much wider pool of people to select from. I think it is very unlikely he would retain Abbott in that position.

 

[nitronite]

Our Home Secretary was Theresa fucking May.

Abbott is a mess and could also have a problem with alcohol (as does half of Westminster) - but I'm still not sure she would be worse than May.

This is how the Tories get you. Our country only desires the appearance of competence rather than specifically looking at accomplishments and failures. All they do is find the nearest upper-middle class, middle aged white person to repeat the same talking points and Bob's your uncle - that person must be competent.

I'm not sure what your point is. Theresa May was obviously STRONG and STABLE™ as home secretary. I mean it took strength to disagree with and try to amend a drug report, just like it took a certain amount consistency to keep setting unachievable immigration figures.

 

[Meadows]

Labour's current Shadow Cabinet is essentially irrelevant, remember. In the incredibly unlikely event Labour did win the election and form the government, then suddenly all of the sulkers and tantrum-throwers would be immediately back on board, and Corbyn would have a much wider pool of people to select from. I think it is very unlikely he would retain Abbott in that position.

There's no way on earth that - if they somehow get in - that Corbyn would then start to pander to his centre.

He's already going all in trying to move the party to the full left rather than centre, so if the public gave him a mandate for that he'd gleefully carry on with his current cabinet.

 

[PJV3]

There's no way on earth that - if they somehow get in - that Corbyn would then start to pander to his centre.

He's already going all in trying to move the party to the full left rather than centre, so if the public gave him a mandate for that he'd gleefully carry on with his current cabinet.

I don't think Abbott would want the scrutiny or pressure.

 

[Faddy]

I'm not sure what your point is. Theresa May was obviously STRONG and STABLE™ as home secretary. I mean it took strength to disagree with and try to amend a drug report, just like it took a certain amount consistency to keep setting unachievable immigration figures.

Remember when she claimed she couldn't deport someone because they had a cat as an excuse to try and scrap the Human Rights Act. STRONG and STABLE.

 

[Ghost]

Tuition fees abolition.
This just encourages universities to offer 10 a penny degrees in subjects of no real economic value to the country, yet creates a sustainable business model for the institution at the expense of the tax payer.
It also offers no incentive to a student to succeed and value their time and opportunity on offer at university.
A better system would be a debt write off on successful attainment of a high value degree.

I think most of us on GAF have lived through one end of this spectrum to the other (at the very least from when loans were just introduced to now where they are all but a life time graduate tax), and I have a couple of reasons to disagree with student loans:

1. As of 2015 (so before fees went up again) student debt in England alone was £76bn, and the government says that to date only 12% of students have repaid their loans in full, the student loan company no longer publishes how many people aren't paying back anything but it's thought to be 40%...point being, this is fake money, it's toxic debt, sooner or later the SLC is going to own so much debt that they aren't going to be able to get more credit and at that point they will collapse and guess what, the government will have to pay.

2. I don't doubt there are good universities and other higher education facilities in the UK but I've worked with a few (well respected schools at that) and the conversion from places of learning to profit machines over the last 10 years has been stark and shocking for quality of facilities, teaching standards, and treatment of staff. The idea that education is pointless if it doesn't contribute to the economy is logical to a certain extent but in my experience it doesn't play out in reality because when you incentivise schools to take as many pupils as they can, graduate as many as they can with BSCs and BEngs what you're really doing is incentivising overcrowding universities and making degree courses that aren't worth the paper they're written on.

As wishy washy as it sounds there has to be a point where we say "All Learning is important" regardless of the subject because the fact is that it really is for a functioning society and especially for a functioning higher education system.

 

[PJV3]

Remember when she claimed she couldn't deport someone because they had a cat as an excuse to try and scrap the Human Rights Act. STRONG and STABLE.

Are you possibly hinting the Vicar's daughter is full of shit.

 

[nitronite]

Labour's current Shadow Cabinet is essentially irrelevant, remember. In the incredibly unlikely event Labour did win the election and form the government, then suddenly all of the sulkers and tantrum-throwers would be immediately back on board, and Corbyn would have a much wider pool of people to select from. I think it is very unlikely he would retain Abbott in that position.

Then what's the point of keeping her now?

 

[Ghost]

She actually IS my MP, as it happens, but thanks for the condescension.

Ouch. Condolences.

 

[Preezy]

I don't think Abbott would want the scrutiny or pressure.

Of course she would. Politicians are in the game to be as close to the top of pyramid as possible, they all that power, influence and prestige. None of them really give a shit about changing the world, maybe they did when they were first starting out but not after 30 years of playing the game. They're all soulless husks, even the good ones (probably).

 

[Deleted member 231381]

There's no way on earth that - if they somehow get in - that Corbyn would then start to pander to his centre.

He's already going all in trying to move the party to the full left rather than centre, so if the public gave him a mandate for that he'd gleefully carry on with his current cabinet.

I'm not talking about the centrists. There's a lot of soft left MPs who could quite comfortably sit in a Corbyn government, but are currently sitting out (mostly for leadership ambitions/Brexit related reasons). I'm thinking Clive Lewis, Lisa Nandy, Lilian Greenwood, and so on.

 

[PJV3]

Of course she would. Politicians are in the game to be as close to the top of pyramid as possible, they all that power, influence and prestige. None of them really give a shit about changing the world, maybe they did when they were first starting out but not after 30 years of playing the game. They're all soulless husks, even the good ones (probably).

Well I wouldn't give her much chance of lasting in the job then, the press will declare all out war on her in that role.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Then what's the point of keeping her now?

There are maybe 15 Corbyn loyalists. All of them now occupy senior Shadow Cabinet positions. E.g., he doesn't have anyone else.

 

[Mr. Sam]

I trust you also show absolute solidarity to Donald Trump as he's shown incredible strength to remain in office for over 100 days with people constantly questioning his credibility and taking the piss out of his beautiful hair?

I'm no fan of Abbott but this is a huge leap.

 

[Meadows]

The notion that Theresa May was a "bad" Home Secretary is laughable.

If you disagree with her policies then that is one thing, but she lasted the longest in that job - considered the hardest to do in Westminster - for anyone since the 1800s. She failed on the immigration cap - but that wasn't her target, it was Cameron's and she always argued it was impossible given EU migration.

There were no notable terrorist attacks in her time at the helm and she was never caught up in any large scandals.

She is only the 2nd of Home Secretaries to become the PM since WW2, amazing given it is regarded as the 2nd/3rd highest tier job in politics (chancellor might be higher).

If there is such a thing as a politician being "good" in these incredibly partisan times, then surely this is the best example possible.

Here is a video on the subject: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-35107297/why-has-may-lasted-as-home-secretary

 

[Huw_Dawson]

I'm not sure that's true - if you're a soft left Labour MP facing an unbeatable hard left leader that's one thing, but Corbyn has a party-in-a-party backing him with Momentum and a lot of Trot backing, too.

A lot of Labour MPs are probably looking at Farron as an example of what to do when you have an odious leader. Stick it out on the sidelines, make pitches for important things you can do that isn't related to the leader (Farron became party President, Cooper became head of the influential home affairs select committee I recall) and weather the storm.

Labour are very lucky in that they have a core vote and identifiable ideology. If I was in, say, Umunna's shoes, I'd be focusing on my own patch, keeping that core vote in place and waiting it out - much like I suspect the moderates in the Tory party are doing.