To think people who would otherwise vote for corbyn may not because of Diane Abbott?

[chunkychicken1]

Sorry if there's already a thread about her latest cringeworthy interview but I couldn't find one... here she was on sky new last night, clearly having failed to read the police report she was there to discuss:

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/3731086/shadow-home-secretary-diane-abbott-car-crash-interview-sky-police-security-london-bridge-attacks-terror/amp/

I like corbyn and what he stands for, but I can't give him my vote with these buffoons around him!

Run by me again how the labour economic growth miracle works?

It's more likely to work than the Tory option. Show me a country where neoliberal policies have worked without massively disadvantaging swathes of the population. I would be interesting in examples.

I am struggling. I pay my staff well above minimum wages, I try to work in an ethical way within my business. I don't drive a new car or have sky tv or go on expensive holidays.

You are not a Tory supporter. You are a Tory voter.

Britain so far? If people here are so massively disadvantaged, why do we have so many wanting to come to Britain.

Seriously - I'm not being goady - I can't figure how the labour manifesto is supposed to support private sector firm growth. I think that's a big issue personally.

rather than being a keyboard warrior London dweller I actually go out and work with "the poor" and try to do things in my community that make a difference

I'm a community midwife who has worked for years in one of the poorest boroughs of London. But thanks for showing your true colours.

And you need to inform the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Social Policy Unit and the Poverty and Social Exclusion Centre and the London School of Economics about those families you've found, they'd be really interested.

I agree that the bankers got a get-out-of-jail free card and the hard working middle classes and particularly lower middle classes were shafted. But don't forget that all happened on Labour's watch and Tory austerity was a consequence of that. I believe the Torys, particularly Osborne, took it too far. One reason I liked Theresa May was because she clearly can't stand Osborne and the first thing she did as PM was get rid of him. However she hasn't convinced me that she will do any better at protecting the vulnerable from austerity measures.

I really like a lot of the Labour Party manifesto. But I just can't trust JC and his 'team' (the dregs - he's alienated the brightest and best of the parliamentary party because of his dogged adherence to Socialism and his personality) to deliver on what they say. I can't trust that they won't both raise taxes and waste money, as per previous Labour governments. Also, taxing the rich, didn't Blair's government try the 50% tax rate and find there was actually less revenue coming in?

Good luck, not - I've been asking that question over and over again. Got no response except "ah but the Tories" so far. It's like forever living but with labour tripe!

I can't figure how the labour manifesto is supposed to support private sector firm growth. I think that's a big issue personally.

Business depends on a functioning society.

Tory policy has caused division, unrest, debt, insecurity....

Why people still believe Labour are economically incompetent when their costed manifesto has been endorsed by 129 leading economists and Stephen Hawkings and Noam Chomsky?

Two questons.

1. Why are we conserned about what Noam Chomsky thinks? He is a very political American linguistics academic. I am not following the relevance of his endorsement.

2. Why have I read so many posts on MN today specifically mentioning Labour 's costed manifesto , Stephen Hawkins (who if I am not mistaken is a physicist, although at least he lives in the UK and is not know for very strong political views - correct me if I'm wrong on either) and Noam Chomsky? Very odd

what are the labour plans for growth exactly? As far as I see it, it's raising business costs through pushing up wage bills and corporation tax. Not very likely to result in economic growth. More than likely to cause unemployment and hours cuts.

Indeed, Labour is nothing but tax & spend. There's nothing about stimulating economic growth, encouraging innovation, new technologies, competing in the new global marketplace.

It reminds me of the post war years when the govt decided to build hundreds of new steam trains at a time when other countries were investing in diesel and electric railways. UK looked backwards at how things used to be done and just did the same, partly no doubt to keep the miners and steam train makers in employment. It was a golden opportunity to innovate and be a world leader in the new technology, but they let it pass by and that's why other countries are now the world leaders in train manufacturing.

Renationalising the railways is typical Labour. Harking back to the past instead of looking to the future.

when we say leading economists, where is the link to that? the IFS certainly weren't impressed and I saw quite a few 'unprecedenteds' which is never a great thing because it means that nobody really knows the impact and they suspect it's not been done before because it shouldn't have been done.

Or are we talking about the leading economist David Blanchflower that gave up working with Corbyn's team?

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/02/i-advised-jeremy-corbyn-economics-team-learn-fast--no-credible-plan-labour-leadership

So Diane Abbott pulled out of `women' hour today at the last moment because of illness.

It is hard to know if she was made to pull out, or was indeed ill.

She did not seem well at the last interview, she seemed to struggle to think even, almost like she has bad flu or is on heavy sedatives/pain killers?

The bit of the Labour manifesto that made my heart sink was the sentence that went something like this; 'The foundation of our prosperity is taxation'. I can't understand why no one really picked up on this. Where do they think taxes come from??

Noam Chomsky is noted for his ultra-hard-left views. Hawkins is not an economist.

Yea, I'm totally perplexed by the Chomsky and Hawkings references. What a bizarre statement. Chomsky is a linguistics academic known for his hard-left politics, and Hawkings is a physicist. Where did this bizarre 'endorsement' come from?? Neither of them is an economist!

Renationalising the railways is typical Labour

It is hardly backwards looking.

Rail fairs are increasing to the point that people are finding it hard to get to work. Additionally, rail, when utilised well, reduces the burden of car ownership and is much better for the environment/climate change.

These problems are very much of the day.

The Tories, sadly, have done nothing to help out rail.

I think you need to start looking at Labours plans in a lot more detail noble

I'm not a Labour supporter...as a teacher, however, I have seen the direct effects of Tory policies in detail.

Bankers pay more tax than the average person - of course they do, they earn shitloads more than the average person, so that is entirely reasonable.

the IFS certainly weren't impressed

The IFS disliked all the manifestos.

It must be remembered, however, that the IFS has an agenda

yes, the free tuition is the most bone headed middle class giveaway I've yet seen coming out of the 'left' and it's going to be the stone that drags us under.

As Vince Cable said, successive govts have made fools of themselves over tuition fees.

I don't for the life of me know why the labour party didn't start with fixing what we've got that's underfunded and leave it at that, and then try and future proof pensions and NHS spending. These are all huge asks anyway that need tax rises on everyone...

make we'll have to disagree about the IFS, you couldn't be more wrong if you think they are in any way personally RW biased.

And if you're so left that you don't believe in managed markets (but you do believe managed migration can work :) then we're not going to agree.

But, whether we like it or not, someone owns the railways/utilities etc. I don't agree that they should be in private ownership, but in order to get them back, they have to be bought.... and how much would that cost?

For example the Guardian put the cost of renationalising the water industry at £69b. £69 billion pounds.

So, for the railways, electricity and gas and water... er, quite a lot of tax needs to be raised.

People forget that the heyday of Labour government - the welfare state, new affordable housing, the NHS - were all post-war policies paid for by American money (Marshall aid).

Today the situation is very different. Yet Labour's manifesto tells us that 'taxation' will pay for everything under the sun.

i don't think re-nationalizing should be any sort of a priority - why can't labour focus on the important things like education cuts to primary and secondary which have disadvantaged our kids? Why can't they sort out the hell that is trying to get disability benefits?

The rest of it is second string ideologically motivated unimportant rubbish, but the key point is, for Corbyn et al it is a key motivator, not putting the poor first.

The Tories, sadly, have done nothing to help out rail.

They have introduced HS2 and HS3, hs2 is future proofing the crumbling rail network and is still met with opposition.

As for parroting the 129 economist nonsene from the blog Another angry voice, if you take a look through the list you have esteemed economists such as Paul Mason, economics writer, with a degree in music and politics :D

There are also many who do not back Corbyns plans, but obviously they must all be right wing and can be safely ignored

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/05/07/what-corbynomics-should-look-like-right-now/

citywire.co.uk/money/labours-manifesto-plans-do-the-sums-add-up/a1017112

The cost of renationalisation is insane. And how long would it be before the private contracts expired anyway? JC would have bankrupted us and been booted out long before then. So it's impractical on both fronts!