To think Corbyn's maths is wrong again

[Rebeccaslicker]

www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/28/jeremy-corbyn-announces-labour-will-buy-every-homeless-person/amp/

How is this going to work? Does he mean "give" as in legally transfer or does he mean no rent? How does he think the houses are going to be maintained and utility bills paid? Is it fair on people who've been on waiting lists? Is it really going to reduce the numbers of homeless people if it becomes seen as a quick way to skip the queue?

I got back to my car in an NCP the other night, to find 5 homeless people right next to it with foil and needles. They were also going through some wallets (which may well have been their own; I didn't stop to check of course). The state of them was very sad and although I did feel intimidated at first, I also didn't report them because I thought, where else would they go - it's chucking it down. But then again, no way would they be able to look after a house. They were like zombies.

He's absolutely right to want to do something about the homeless situation. There should be more lots more help. But I don't think this is the answer. AIBU?

It's just soap box politics. He has no intention of doing it same as tuition fees, no intention of writing them off he is a buffoon of the first order

Whatever it costs, it will be a fraction of the money the DUP got from shaking the Magic Money Tree, which was upwards of £1 billion.

I'd rather it got spent on 8,000 homeless, than 10 MPs.

Rebecca - the Labour manifesto WAS costed. They said they'd raise just under £50m by taxing the rich. I know you have all sorts of objections to this, ranging from "I don't like it, it'll hurt me" to "All the rich people will leave anyway" (and bloody good riddance, I say), but the fact remains, we CAN raise the money if we tax those who simply have too much, like you. (And like me, too). We can also raise money with things like a proper land tax, and by a taxation on planning gain. We've clashed over those issues before - such proposals offend your sense of the princely sanctity of all private property, while I counter by pointing out that most of the private property in large landed estates was actually stolen in the first place from the common people by aristocrats (read the last chapter of Capital Volume 1 for the full argument).

8,000 homes might sound like a lot of money in addition to the pledges they made a few months back, but it's affordable in the context of the national budget - compare it to the price of the completely pointless Trident programme, and it looks like a much better use of just a fraction of the budget. And please spare me the false sympathy for "those on waiting lists". Labour is the only party with any real commitment to building social housing in this country. The Tories only say they will when they get scared enough by a surging left-wing vote to adapt their policies leftwards in response.

My point about the economy is that there is NOT a fixed amount of money, like a household budget. Nor are the priorities of spending and raising money set in stone. The economy is not "natural" or "given". Instead, the economy is a flexibly-bounded, artificial creation, which is there to be moulded to reflect the values of our society. At the moment, it doesn't work for a very great deal of the poorest and the most vulnerable, and in my view that means it needs to change.

And you really think just under £50m is going to cover all the proposals? Christ it wouldn't even provide enough sticking plasters for the NHS!

Corbyn is expecting it to cover:

NHS
Social housing
Tuition fees
Renationalisation
Increased benefits
Homeless

And the rest. Is it an elastic sum? He hasn't answered what will happen when his small pool of people who (he thinks) can pay more change their jobs or disappear. Because he doesn't want to hear about reality. And neither do you!

Cracking idea!

Lets build 8000 homes and put a bloody great wall round it too.

We'll build a few shops & other infrastructure in there so they can all get jobs & help each other out. Once it's up & running we can just chuck any new homeless people over the wall to join in the fun!!

(Escape to New York anyone???)

the Labour manifesto WAS costed.

It was costed, but it was not costed correctly, was way too optimistic and very vague.

It was also "fully costed" that he did a U-turn on Tuition fees, just to name one.

There are two separate issues here. Firstly the manifesto pledges. There's a breakdown of intended expenditure and costs here:

www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2017/may/16/what-would-labours-manifesto-cost-pledges-money-guide-details

Now this represents the thinking a short while ago. We know some of this has shifted a bit since the last manifesto. What would a policy like buying 8,000 homes cost? A billion or just over? In the context of these figures, it's quite possible to imagine, say, a billion being taken away from the extra that was going towards university budgets and being allocated to the homeless.

Sorry, not university budgets - the tuition fees pledge.

What do you think about labour accepting £12m from unite - despite it paying £0 tax on its £50m portfolio in 2012, 2013 and again in 2016, whiskyowl?

You're happy for people who see 62% of their hard earned income to pay even more, so what do you think about that??!

In the context of these figures, it's quite possible to imagine, say, a billion being taken away from the extra that was going towards university budgets and being allocated to the homeless.

Or just recovered from the DUP deal - which presumably took it's money from university budgets (as well as all other budgets).

Basically, capitalism is a kind of war. Capital will ALWAYS seek new ways of not paying its way, and of exploiting people. This is what it does. The state's job is to seek new ways of tying it down to preserve the social contract that ensures that we all look after each other, that we have infrastructure, roads, schools, a decent health service etc. At some level, however, this breaks down into a kind of uneasy cooperation because, at base, capital recognises that it is reliant on a workforce that needs these such things to be provided in order to that they are ready for exploitation.

But how do you make that appealing to the small number of people who are shouldering most of the burden? And what do you do when they go? It wouldn't take many to go for their to be a massive gap.

The DUP is ridiculous and we can all thank Teresa may's gambling for that shit. But it's a drop in the bucket compared to what Corbyn and McDonnell would do. Got a job? Got a garden? Got a business? Marvellous, you can buy into our new world order. Sure you'll be worse off, and your hard earned quality of living will drop, but you'll be benefiting millions of others instead. Doesn't that make you feel good?

Well no. Because he'd make a massive balls up of it and the economy, get soundly voted out at the election after or the one after that before his policies (other than the high taxes, which would all have been spent) were even properly in place. And the austerity that would have to follow his 70's socialist experiment would make UC look like a fantasy.

I'll say it again: people who say they can happily pay more only mean a bit more. They don't mean they'll see their income slashed and their quality of life seriously affected and leap about with glee. They mean they'll chuck in a few more percent to pay themselves on the back about how liberal they are, whilst expecting people with more than them to carry the can. And when those people fuck off elsewhere, and McDonnell comes raiding and raiding and raiding again, they'll wish they'd been careful what they wished for!

Outside London, there are masses of privately owned properties that are empty or derelict. Some have even been partially or completely demolished in preparation for planning permission which was never granted.

Factory buildings, hospitals, pubs, churches, flats, old shops and houses. Nothing is exempt.

Some are owned by property developers who may or may not live in the area, some are owned by private individuals who are unwilling or unable to sell on and some are council owned.

The sheer waste is just soul destroying.

Listed properties are being held hostage by developers who want to convert to profitable HMOs and the councils are happy to let swathes of their borough become derelict eyesores.

There's no need to develop green belt land outside of London, there's plenty of brown field sites going spare.

There are many causes of homelessness and simply putting thrm under a roof will not stop the problems.

Drugs, mental illness, personality disorders, lack of mental capacity, abuse, habitual criminality; you name it there are dozens of factors that have to be tackled, before some of the homeless can stay off the streets.

Simply compulsorily buying 10,000 homes and sticking rough sleepers and those in temporary accomodation into them is not enough. It will never be enough.

Urrrrrgh for THERE to be a massive gap. Stupid phone!!

Rebecca. you are right i'm afraid - that is why the labour party need a new way a new leader to get finally get shot of Abbott and Mc donnell.
Nobody will vote for this crowd. JC is nice enough, but he isn't leader or PM material with these policies. They do not add up.

Rebecca - I don't really care about making it appealing to you. If we want to stay in this country, people like you and I need to pay our fair share towards ensuring there is a good, equitable system for all. And I'm sorry if that cuts into your funds for your massive Cheshire mansion, but actually I think that getting someone from the streets into a stable life is a better use of money.

You assume that what is true for you, in terms of resenting every penny you can no longer spend on yourself, is true for everyone. That all higher earners will resent more tax or will want to leave. You assume wrongly. I don't know what kind of dreadful circle of people you mix in where such selfishness is so rampant, but there are plenty of people who are willing to pay to live in a country with better funded healthcare and education for all.

The DUP is ridiculous and we can all thank Teresa may's gambling for that shit. But it's a drop in the bucket compared to what Corbyn and McDonnell would do.

The DUP deal shows we can't trust anyones figures.

So if we have to proceed on that basis, I'd rather go into a future with Labours shit maths, but good heart, rather than Tory shit maths, and evil heart.

He should have asked Diane Abbott to check it. She's a maths whizz!
Twentyhundredmillion extra police! 😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣

Nobody will vote for this crowd.

I know, the massive drubbing Labour took last year ... they lost seats, lost votes and lost support. It's a miracle they survived.

rebecca is of course correct

I know, the massive drubbing Labour took last year ... they lost seats, lost votes and lost support. It's a miracle they survived.

The fact that Labour lost to the austerity promising shit show of a Conservative government is very damning.

I would LOVE to see any of you on live tv being asked questions and never once slip up. I hate this piss taking of Diane Abbott. Find something better to do.

The Labour Party is becoming an absolute joke. It is all about just spouting the rhetoric of the month to seem progressive, without substantiating any claims with real facts.