Corbyn needs to win the next election. One to see if he is any good at keeping his word while not ****ing up the country. 2 so the NHS doesn't become privatised or sued to bankruptcy by the ****s at Virgin Health. If Corbyn ****s up I will call him out on it. But **** having Boris or Ledson as PM. Shivers
the debts of this country has continued 2 spiral, mr corbyn would be in the hands of Rothschild, soros, jp morgan and the other one % owners............if they call a recession then they get what they want>>>>>>yes mr corbyn would get the blame no doubt even though it wouldn't have been his fault, some of us are not fooled by the 1%`ers game of monopoly I tell thee. democracy>>>>>>not until we wake up and smell the coffee of who the real owners are
Mental health needs to be badly looked at and funded big time. The Tories atm just seem to want to chat and do **** all. Depression is already the most common illness, so many people kill themselves getting no help at all. Whoever is the next PM has a lot of **** to fix. Such as the amount of foodbanks being used and the lack of houses. Austerity isn't going to help either of them. They also need to fix the benefits for the sick and disabled. Universal Credit is a **** show and is taking way too long to implement. People are still being put in ESA and having to wait over a year to get a medical to be able to have 100% of the benefits. It's a ****ing joke.
This circle has to be broken. Labour spend, country gets into debt, Tories come in with austerity to fix debt, Tories unpopular so Labour get back in and spend, debt increases, Tories back in - austerity increases, Labour back in, debt increases and so on. Cannot see where Labour are going to get the money from without significant borrowing.
Except that the debt has doubled since the Tories got in in 2010, and the country has nothing to show for it. Borrowing isn't a bad thing, it's how you use the money that's important. The Tories have made such a mess of the economy that Labour should have a chance to sort things out.
Except that the UK's national debt was far lower under the last Labour government than it is currently. And austerity has never fixed anything - if you suck money out of an ailing economy, the result is further stagnation and prolonged recession. Every economist knows this, and yet still the same tired old tropes are trotted out by right wing governments and media, and still people believe them. Of course Labour will have to borrow to fund their manifesto commitments - just as the present government has borrowed at record levels, but in their case merely to keep the economy on life support. By putting money directly into working people's pockets, for example by lifting the punitive 1% pay cap on public sector workers, Labour's policy will stimulate economic activity. This is basic Keynesian Economics - these lessons were learned in the 1930's. It's why the Roosevelt administration built the Hoover Dam for heavens sake; absolutely heartbreaking that we are having to learn it all over again. You do not cut public spending during a recession; you borrow to invest in the lean times, and pay down the debt in the times of plenty.
The story is a little bit inbetween. The debt has gone up tremendously under the tories. At the same time the deficit has also done something like gone done by like 40% in the past few years. Surprisingly, the labour spend during their years wasn't as big as i expected when they were in power except when the credit crunch hit and the deficit went massive. That on the otherhand didn't account for PFI. Not sure what the entire truth is with what you wrote archers but there is arguments for both. I wouldn't like to end up like Greece (overspend and not too much austerity) . What we do know is that the fat are getting fatter and everyone else is being left behind
Alternatively you might say Tories come in with austerity, damaging schools, social housing, NHS etc, through lack of funding, Labour comes in and borrows to repair the damage caused by punitive austerity measures. Just think though. If Labour get in and renationalise utilities, railways, Royal Mail, and get involved in telecommunications, profits would go a good way to cover some of the significant borrowing. And how about rebuilding Council House stock, where housing benefits will go to the local authorities rather than private landlords. And put in place a law preventing them from ever being sold off, as before. We need change, because things aren’t working for so many people, especially the poor.
That's what I have been trying to find out without much success. However much it is, and assuming we have the money, I would rather it was spent on health, social care, social housing etc than on renationalisation.
As far as I know, the water companies will just be run as public utilities once their franchises come to an end, so no cost to the public purse. The money for the railways etc. will be borrowed, and the profits used to repay the debt. Increasing corporation tax will help pay for the other things you list. It's not exactly revolutionary.
I never suggested it was. https://www.theguardian.com/politic...rs-manifesto-cost-pledges-money-guide-details The renationalisation wasn't costed in this document hence my perfectly valid question. The things I quoted need far more money than either party is suggesting and that is why I would rather the money (wherever it is coming from) goes to them. I believe there are far more important things to sort out first.
For the Railways, not a penny. The various constituent parts are run as franchises with limited timescales. As those franchises expire, they are either put back out to tender, or they can remain in public ownership. There is no cost involved to the taxpayer in simply waiting for the existing franchises - which have encouraged a damaging culture of short termism and under investment - to expire.
