Labour's Election-Winning Manifesto.....

[mushroom25]

reported in all media outlets today is john mcdonnell's speech to conference yesterday - with pledges including a complete ban on fracking, a £10 minimum wage, universal benefits, a "soak the rich" tax regime, and a £500 billion loan to fund the forthcoming socialist package.

no links, because the media of each political hue put their own spin on it being either madness, cloud cuckoo land, etc, or a bold fresh approach, socialism at its utmost best, etc.

which of the electoral pledges outlined yesterday would persuade you to vote labour, or to vote anything but?

[Baldric]

I've already been persuaded to vote 'anything but' and if I'm honest, that happen a good few years ago

[fiction-factory]

I wouldn't mind a big chunk of spending on house building and some infrastructure but I am not attracted to any of the above. The fracking one for a start seems to be something to appease activists rather than address the energy shortage. I'll believe the pledge to eliminate tax avoidance when I see evasion eliminated- every clamp down seems to make no difference. The rhetoric about making the bankers and speculators pay instead of austerity for the poor is just meaningless words. I do sort of like the guy though.

[fiction-factory]

^ I meant to type avoidance not evasion, although I think McDonnell would say they are effectively the same thing

[grumpy01]

Labour aren't going to win an election anytime soon and if they did a £10 minimum wage would put a lot of smaller firms out of business.Also, larger firms would trim their workforce thus adding a lot more people on to the unemployed register.

[youngmafbog]

None of them would persuade me since non are achievable or practical.

More borrowing I see, a leopard never changes its spots does it?

And as for the fracking, even it's paymasters are not happy on that one. Talk abut biting the hand that feeds you.

[youngmafbog]

To make tax avoidance work a complete overhaul and simplification of the tax system needs to be done, as called for by the Tax Payers Alliance.

A simple single (no EHI/NHU etc) lowish rate of tax with no reliefs is the only way, no loopholes and not cost effective to try and avoid it. It could be done since if everyone is paying in more revenue is generated and the tax departmant could be shrunk massively saving milions.

[waterboatman]

None.

[mikey4444]

I am still unsure on fracking, but I would quite gladly vote for a Party that promised to build more Council Houses, raised the minimum wage and used a rise in taxes for the rich to spend on on worthwhile projects.

[Gromit]

// More borrowing I see, a leopard never changes its spots does it? //

And is the current Government working on a surplus budget? Nope, they plan a deficit budget (spending more than they are raising) just like George Osborne did for 5 years. They are borrow to fund that.

Speaking of George Osborne, his record was that he borrowed more in 4 years than Labour did in its entire 13 years in office.

A big element of pot calling the kettle if you attack Labours borrowing plans. Or maybe just ignorance of how reckless the Conservatives have been in spending money we haven't got. A simple graph might help those in denial.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/include/ukgs_chartDp11t.png

[cassa333]

Unless some catastrophe occurred where every other proper politician died I don't think Labour has a chance for the foreseeable years and years future.

I gave up being a Labour supporter when I grew up and nothing that they are saying now even goes an inch towards me changing that view.

In any case one or two reasonable ideas should not sway you if all the others are from taken the lunatic asylum.

You should look to the whole policy rather than one clause. You are a dead duck if you do.

[cassa333]

Gromit, borrowing isn't necessarily bad. The way you intend to pay it back is the point.

[Gromit]

// and a £500 billion loan to fund the forthcoming socialist package. //

Which is actually less than The Conservatives have borrowed in the last 5 years.

The difference is that in 2010 they lied and said they would end our debts, but instead doubled them.

[Togo]

//Inflation always has been a labour government tool. Borrow massive and hope for interest rate rises like a giant national casino. Then when you go bust, just leave a note saying sorry all the money has gone in the petty cash box. Then spend the next few years screaming savage wicked cuts at the people sorting out the mess.//

That is part of a post yesterday on a different thread, I think it fits in on this one nicely.

[Gromit]

Togo,
Except it isn't true (or is vastly out of date).

Inflation hasn't really been a problem for the last 25 years. The last time it was high was 1990 when the Tories were in power. During the last 3 Labour Governments of Blair/Brown, inflation was under control.
Labour ran out of money in 2010 not because of inflation but because it had to spend hundreds of billions saving banks that were not allowed to fail.

http://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/blog-uploads/2012/09/inflation-1918-2011.png

[youngmafbog]

So the only reason labour ran out of money was because of the Banks eh Gromit?

For gawds sake, change the record.

And the Tories were not in power for the last five years were they?

[fiction-factory]

Whilst I wouldn't dismiss Keynesian economics in the way some have on here Gromit, and whilst I would like to see an expansion of council and other housebuilding, I am puzzled as to why Labour supporters gleefully criticise the last two governments for overseeing a rise in the public deficit (even though Labour voted against some measures to reduce expenditure) and then go on to propose instead... a further large increase in the deficit.

[Gromit]

Ymb,
Please don't try and say the LibDems did Osborne's budgets for him for 5 years because I might laugh my head off. Osborne oversaw the doubling of the national debt all on his own without Clegg and Co.

[Gromit]

Ff,
Both Tory and Labour are (have) been planning to set deficit budgets of equally the same size. Roughly £100billion a year.
The arguement is about how they spend their borrowed money.
Labour voted against measures to reduce expenditure, because those were cuts in welfare for the poor. Labour think that savings or even tax raising can be found elsewhere.

[Gromit]

// Roughly £100billion a year. //

Clarification:
That is £100billion a year borrowing on top of taxes raised (which is about £720billion), not total expenditure.

[youngmafbog]

Yes, of course Gromit. Those pesky liberals didnt exist did they?

For the record I hate Osborne and I do think he could have done better, but without doubt his hands were tied on how to deal with the deficit including the simple fact you cannot just turn the tap off without serious repercussions. As you well know.