The labour Leader thread...

scorza said:
Well for starters he kept the UK armed forces out of the Syrian conflict when the PM was hell bent on getting involved. I for one will always be grateful to him for doing that. He also challenged Murdoch's buyout of the remainder of BSkyB shares, which is probably why the sheeple think he's so useless.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, just perhaps, if we had got involved in Syria the humanitarian disaster that's ongoing there may be less so or even avoided? And maybe a few 1000 less migrants wouldn't be waiting to head here over in Calais....

I think Cameron's reasons for wanting to get involved in Syria stack up a lot better than Blairs (if we ever get to find out what really went on there!) reasons for Iraq, one was principled- rightly or wrongly we'll never know - the other was sucking up to that "wonderful" US Presudent Bush.
 
Sorry, Cooper, Kendal and Burnham are all that is wrong with the Labour party. There is no difference to them or the Tory`s they should actually be standing for.

Corbyn will force the labour party to be something again. Re-privatisation is a vote winner for many people. They are tired of fairs going up and up due to the botched way we handle franchise bids.

Want a example... east coast line was making steady profit, fairs was stable and reasonable (lots of pre-booking etc) New franchise comes in... fairs go up. Trains get reduced pre booking reduced. So more expensive worse service.

I hope JC gets in and i hope he forces some of the red Tory`s out.
 
SPG said:
Sorry, Cooper, Kendal and Burnham are all that is wrong with the Labour party. There is no difference to them or the Tory`s they should actually be standing for.

Corbyn will force the labour party to be something again. Re-privatisation is a vote winner for many people. They are tired of fairs going up and up due to the botched way we handle franchise bids.

Want a example... east coast line was making steady profit, fairs was stable and reasonable (lots of pre-booking etc) New franchise comes in... fairs go up. Trains get reduced pre booking reduced. So more expensive worse service.

I hope JC gets in and i hope he forces some of the red Tory`s out.
Click to expand...

How is he going to fund ll of his proposals?
 
Cancel trident

There is one off the top of my head.

+ I dare say the same way we fund stuff now.

Infastructure should not be for profit. Re-Investment levels only.

People before greed.
 
Moses said:
How much would cancelling Trident (or its renewal/replacement) save? Obviously there's the headline cost, but we get a lot of it back in terms of tax, people being employed, skills being maintained we can sell/use for other stuff, etc... so what would be the saving overall, rather than the headline spend saving?
Click to expand...

How come this logic applies to thermonuclear warheads but apparently not to railways, to housing construction or to other much needed infrastructure projects?
 
Nowhere, but it definitely seems to be something of a double standard by some in this thread. The things he wants to cut can't possibly be cut because of their contribution to the economy but the things he wants to invest in can't possibly be invested in despite their contribution to the economy through the exact same mechanisms.
 
SPG said:
Cancel trident

There is one off the top of my head.

+ I dare say the same way we fund stuff now.

Infastructure should not be for profit. Re-Investment levels only.

People before greed.
Click to expand...

What happens to the town of Barrow if Tridents is not replaced?
 
Moses said:
How much would cancelling Trident (or its renewal/replacement) save? Obviously there's the headline cost, but we get a lot of it back in terms of tax, people being employed, skills being maintained we can sell/use for other stuff, etc... so what would be the saving overall, rather than the headline spend saving?
Click to expand...

Well £20BN cost seems to be the figure that gets 'chucked around' when discussing replacing Trident.

Given that the UK spends in the region of £580-600 BN per year, even the yelling of 'scrap Trident' and its associated 'savings' don't seem to be worthwhile to me.

Yes, it may be the last gasp of a dying empire yadda yadda, but it costs money to have a seat at that exclusive club, and I don't think we should chuck that seat away for a paltry few £BN.
 
matt_fsr said:
Well £20BN cost seems to be the figure that gets 'chucked around' when discussing replacing Trident.

Given that the UK spends in the region of £580-600 BN per year, even the yelling of 'scrap Trident' and its associated 'savings' don't seem to be worthwhile to me.

Yes, it may be the last gasp of a dying empire yadda yadda, but it costs money to have a seat at that exclusive club, and I don't think we should chuck that seat away for a paltry few £BN.
Click to expand...

Ahh yes, the Security council...

Not done particularly anything in forever, just seems to exist so that Russia and the US can Veto each other into oblivion.

Of course it was completely ignored when we into Iraq wasn't it?

In fact i don't know the last time the UN even came up in the news... its dismal.
 
matt_fsr said:
Well £20BN cost seems to be the figure that gets 'chucked around' when discussing replacing Trident.

Given that the UK spends in the region of £580-600 BN per year, even the yelling of 'scrap Trident' and its associated 'savings' don't seem to be worthwhile to me.

Yes, it may be the last gasp of a dying empire yadda yadda, but it costs money to have a seat at that exclusive club, and I don't think we should chuck that seat away for a paltry few £BN.
Click to expand...

20bn for replacement and then about 2bn a year running it.

Nowhere near enough to fund any of his major policies.
 
Freakbro said:
I would like to say they wouldn't....but...



It was, but the point was, you can hardly base national policy on the fortunes of 1 town.
Click to expand...

It would be pretty ironic that the most left wing, pro union candidate would embark a policy that would have a similar affect to a Thatcher policy. :D
 
Moses said:
How much would cancelling Trident (or its renewal/replacement) save? Obviously there's the headline cost, but we get a lot of it back in terms of tax, people being employed, skills being maintained we can sell/use for other stuff, etc... so what would be the saving overall, rather than the headline spend saving?
Click to expand...

Instead of buiding weapons, how about we use those people and skills to make things that benefit human kind, rather than destroying it? E.G trains, planes, renewable energy equipment, transitional high tech manufacturing etc.
 
OldCoals said:
It would be pretty ironic that the most left wing, pro union candidate would embark a policy that would have a similar affect to a Thatcher policy. :D
Click to expand...

Who cares?

Its a small town barely anyone knows exists if it weren't for the program, Thatcher basically closed Wales and the North of England for business. (Arguably a sensible idea, otherwise we'd still be dirt poor as a nation)

Don't personally care, Thatcher did not affect me, but don't compare it.
 
amigafan2003 said:
Instead of buiding weapons, how about we use those people and skills to make things that benefit human kind, rather than destroying it? E.G trains, planes, renewable energy equipment, transitional high tech manufacturing etc.
Click to expand...

Because it is "cheaper" to do it abroad.

I don't agree with HS2 but if it is to go ahead we should be manufacturing the required parts in this country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom