Oberleutnant posted:

I'm hard left and i didn't vote out, nor did any of the other communists or socialists i know.

Brexit wasn't a hardleft thing, it was a loving stupid thing because the choice was between european neoliberalism or full unrestrained tory poorfucking and xenophobia. Lesser of two evils, innit.

ukle posted:

Or alternatively the monikers hard left and hard right mean sod all without describing what they are hard left / right of.

Many people are 'hard' right on immigration, while also being 'hard' left on economics. This has been shown constantly on the opinion polls.

Its as I have said a few times, Labour would win with a landslide with a manifesto based around nationalisation, house building and limiting immigration in a region until average house prices are affordable. But we can't talk about immigration as that's 'racist' despite the fact this country has significant issues due to far too little money has been spent on infrastructure, and until that infrastructure has caught up its silly to add further people to it and making the problems even worse.

Evil_Urna posted:

Thank you. I think it works well. Trying to crush business men who actually add to the economy because you are jealous of others success, or out of class spite or whatever. But it has been proven again and again that vindictive taxation upon the wealthy drives down the economy, and forces companies to offshore and to take money out of the local economy.

Thatcher and Regans policy's worked great in England and America until they were neutered and abandoned by administrations down the line.

Kegluneq posted:

Is there really a compelling economic argument against immigration? Mistrust of the Other does tend to cross political boundaries, although the language involved is primarily right wing.

MikeCrotch posted:

Hmm yes, its definitely the hard right and hard left which are poorly defined terms, unlike the solid ideological bedrock of liberal centrism.

Also Labour would in no way win a landslide on an ethnic nationalist platform since

1. Loads of people would leave and not vote for an openly racist labour (like me)
2. If immigration is your deciding factor people are going to trust the Tories/UKIP on it more than Labour

Oberleutnant posted:

I'm hard left and i didn't vote out, nor did any of the other communists or socialists i know.

Brexit wasn't a hardleft thing, it was a loving stupid thing because the choice was between european neoliberalism or full unrestrained tory poorfucking and xenophobia. Lesser of two evils, innit.

HJB posted:

I had no idea who Sasasas were but after looking them up I'm disappointed, I've been hoisted by my own PLUR.

AceRimmer posted:

I'm increasingly sure The Invisibles nailed its depiction of the British ruling class.

Ewan posted:

Well one argument against is that seasonal workers are willing to work for much less wages than the local population and accept shittier living conditions, in order to save up a chunk of money to send home where it is worth a lot more. I'd argue here the problem is with the employers, not with the immigrants themselves though.

To ask an opposite question, are there really any compelling economic arguments for immigration?

Disclaimer: Just before people misinterpret this - I am not anti-immigration

Ewan posted:

http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/manifesto2017

Manifesto and spending pdfs both gone live.

£48.6bn extra taxes, funding $48.6bn extra funding.

Pissflaps posted:

Lots of good stuff in there - where's the costings for nationalising rail, mail and energy though?

quote:

Those who say Conservative policies on workers’ rights are a contradiction in terms do not know their history.

Labour Manifesto posted:

Labour will continue to ensure
a woman’s right to choose a safe, legal abortion – and we will work with the Assembly to extend that right to women in Northern Ireland.

josh04 posted:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/15/the-guardian-view-on-theresa-may-and-workers-rights-a-start-but-much-still-to-prove


I am so mad at this bad article

kustomkarkommando posted:

As I expected that commitment on abortion reform in Northern Ireland got watered down to


Not surprisingly really

Spuckuk posted:

Definitely should be on the thread approved reading list. The depiction of The Hunt is fantastic/loving horrible.

Laura Kuenssberg posted:

Labour manifesto vision: More spending, more tax, more borrowing

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

This is not an election where voters can say, with justification, "they are all the same".

The just-launched Labour manifesto shows, in black and white, why that is simply not the case.
The party is including £48.6bn of extra tax rises, and the same in extra spending commitments.

In the coming hours, the details will be pored over at length; they matter enormously.

But the big picture is clear.

Jeremy Corbyn is taking the Labour Party in this election to a very different place - away from the recent consensus that the UK should be moving to lower borrowing, and lower taxation.
The manifesto spells out a vision, for good or for ill, of more spending, more tax, and more borrowing.

And in a big way.

Pissflaps posted:

Lots of good stuff in there - where's the costings for nationalising rail, mail and energy though?

Pissflaps posted:

Those idiots booing journalists at the manifesto launch are not a good look.

Oberleutnant posted:

Oberleutnant posted:

sebzilla posted:

Nationalising rail is a free process of just retaining franchises once they expire, from what I've read previously.

Ewan posted:

http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/manifesto2017

Manifesto and spending pdfs both gone live.

£48.6bn extra taxes, funding $48.6bn extra funding.

Boris Johnson wearing a red rose posted:

We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union – which are essential for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain.
...
Freedom of movement will end when we leave the European Union.

jBrereton posted:

The line on consensus is factual.

Ewan posted:

If the "recent consensus on low borrowing etc..." line was taken out, what remains is largely factual and neutral. And even the line on "consensus" - given the results of the 2015 election - is broadly factual.


Labour manifesto vision: More spending, more tax, more borrowing

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

This is not an election where voters can say, with justification, "they are all the same".

The just-launched Labour manifesto shows, in black and white, why that is simply not the case.
The party is including £48.6bn of extra tax rises, and the same in extra spending commitments.

In the coming hours, the details will be pored over at length; they matter enormously.

But the big picture is clear.

Jeremy Corbyn is taking the Labour Party in this election to a very different place - away from the recent consensus that the UK should be moving to lower borrowing, and lower taxation.
The manifesto spells out a vision, for good or for ill, of more spending, more tax, and more borrowing.

And in a big way.

Breath Ray posted:

Cerv - they'll just be moved from other projects like hs2

Oberleutnant posted:

It's only "factual" if you consider a "consensus" to be the tories and the media screeching about living within our means, the Miliband-era Labour being too timid to contradict it, while every other country and every economist laughed at how ridiculous austerity was.