"The longest suicide note in history" is an epithet originally used by United Kingdom Labour Party MP Gerald Kaufman to describe his party's 1983 election manifesto, which emphasised socialist policies in a more profound manner than previous such documents, and led to the party's biggest ever drubbing at the polls

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8550425.stm

General election 2017: Labour manifesto draft leaked
"Mr McDonnell ... rejected comparisons with Labour's radical 1983 election manifesto, saying Labour had "an extremely modern, progressive set of proposals... looking to the long-term future"."

"The manifesto still has to be approved by around 80 Labour figures, including the shadow cabinet and the party's National Executive Committee. Shadow chancellor John McDonnell said he did not know who was behind the leak, which he called "disappointing". ... The draft was initially leaked to the Daily Mirror and the Daily Telegraph."

I wonder who leaked it and why. Maybe they thought the party wouldn't get it finalised before the other parties published theirs and wanted to trump them for media attention?

No Jo; we all know the way to get publicity these days is to "leak" something - then all the easily fooled media hacks think they have an exclusive and write about it instead of just ignoring another boring manifesto. Basic PR this century. Labour leaked it.

Also that old "suicide note" quote from Gerald (some of us are old enough to remember it first time around) - times change; a suicide note from 30 years ago may be a superb way of avoiding disaster in the new society. Many who felt (like me) that it wouldn't work in 1983 might feel it could work in 2017 since the alternative clearly failed (see the banks collapse - a clear result of the alternative approach).

JK - perhaps the banks collapsed because we had a labour government who felt they could spend as much as they wanted to give the British people the illusion we were doing well
Never trust labour

Brian wrote:
JK - perhaps the banks collapsed because we had a labour government who felt they could spend as much as they wanted to give the British people the illusion we were doing well
Never trust labour

Or anyone under 30.

Blair legacy is illegal wars and increased knife crime.

Brian wrote:
JK - perhaps the banks collapsed because we had a labour government who felt they could spend as much as they wanted to give the British people the illusion we were doing well
Never trust labour

Brian

I hope you don;t mind me ammending your comment slightly?

perhaps the banks collapsed because we had a labour government - who lifted all controls over the banks and let them do what they wanted - who [also] felt they could spend as much as they wanted to give the British people the illusion we were doing well

In The Know wrote:
Brian wrote:
JK - perhaps the banks collapsed because we had a labour government who felt they could spend as much as they wanted to give the British people the illusion we were doing well
Never trust labour

Brian

I hope you don;t mind me ammending your comment slightly?

perhaps the banks collapsed because we had a labour government - who lifted all controls over the banks and let them do what they wanted - who [also] felt they could spend as much as they wanted to give the British people the illusion we were doing well

Not forgetting Labour's idea to break the country up with Assembly Regions idea, funny how that is never mentioned.

I've come up with a title for Labour's manifesto - Sending Britain back to the Dark Ages !

For all of you in the South, you've just had a brief taste of what a Labour government (owned by the Unions / Commies) would bring.

Southern Rail ... and months of strikes !

Ben Bradshaw (Labour) got it right - they are fighing to save a few Labour MPs in the hope of resurrecting it after the implosion.

In The Know wrote:
I've come up with a title for Labour's manifesto - Sending Britain back to the Dark Ages !

For all of you in the South, you've just had a brief taste of what a Labour government (owned by the Unions / Commies) would bring.

Southern Rail ... and months of strikes !

Ben Bradshaw (Labour) got it right - they are fighing to save a few Labour MPs in the hope of resurrecting it after the implosion.

Don't say that ITK, I'm going to need to use Southern Rail in a few months time. Then there is crappy Southeastern trains which I use a lot.

I still want to know where Corbyn thinks all this money is going to come from, K about sold the gold reserves for a bag of magic beans.

ITK, buy me a shandy please.

andrew wrote:
I still want to know where Corbyn thinks all this money is going to come from

Good overview in Sky Views -

news.sky.com/story/sky-views-well-all-pa...ion-pledges-10873271

Labour is, as Mr Johnson forecast, seeking to fund its pledges by taxing high earners and multinationals more. It has promised higher taxes only on those earning more than £80,000 a year.

Yet there are not enough of such people to raise the sums Labour seeks. These top 5% of earners, having already been hit with the heaviest tax increases since 2010, already pay 47% of all income tax. Not much more can be squeezed from them.

An extra penny on their income tax would raise less than £1bn. The top rate would have to rise to at least 50% to have a chance of raising much more than that - and this assumes top earners would not change their behaviour after such a hike. When Labour last raised the top rate of income tax to 50%, during the last six weeks of Gordon Brown's government, the amount of tax collected from such earners fell. The same would happen again now. Top earners might decide to work fewer hours to reduce their tax bill or go overseas. It would not raise as much as Labour hopes.

---

Welcome to Loony La-La Land !

In The Know wrote:
andrew wrote:
I still want to know where Corbyn thinks all this money is going to come from

Good overview in Sky Views -

news.sky.com/story/sky-views-well-all-pa...ion-pledges-10873271

Labour is, as Mr Johnson forecast, seeking to fund its pledges by taxing high earners and multinationals more. It has promised higher taxes only on those earning more than £80,000 a year.

Yet there are not enough of such people to raise the sums Labour seeks. These top 5% of earners, having already been hit with the heaviest tax increases since 2010, already pay 47% of all income tax. Not much more can be squeezed from them.
!

This is a lie. Top earners pay 40% income tax and that is only on everything over 42,000, below this they pay 25$ income tax. Even if they did pay 47% of all income tax, they would have 53% left to squeeze as they put it.

In The Know wrote:
andrew wrote:
I still want to know where Corbyn thinks all this money is going to come from

Good overview in Sky Views -

news.sky.com/story/sky-views-well-all-pa...ion-pledges-10873271

Labour is, as Mr Johnson forecast, seeking to fund its pledges by taxing high earners and multinationals more. It has promised higher taxes only on those earning more than £80,000 a year.

Yet there are not enough of such people to raise the sums Labour seeks. These top 5% of earners, having already been hit with the heaviest tax increases since 2010, already pay 47% of all income tax. Not much more can be squeezed from them.

An extra penny on their income tax would raise less than £1bn. The top rate would have to rise to at least 50% to have a chance of raising much more than that - and this assumes top earners would not change their behaviour after such a hike. When Labour last raised the top rate of income tax to 50%, during the last six weeks of Gordon Brown's government, the amount of tax collected from such earners fell. The same would happen again now. Top earners might decide to work fewer hours to reduce their tax bill or go overseas. It would not raise as much as Labour hopes.

---

Welcome to Loony La-La Land !

Heard that all time when I signed on or did jobs people weren't happy with. It's common sense that rich will cut their hours or do jobs overseas to avoid more tax.

Pattaya has know doubt done the same thing.

andrew wrote:
It's common sense that rich will cut their hours or do jobs overseas to avoid more tax.

In the 60s thousands of people moved abroad to avoid Labour's 83% tax rates (and many never returned).
Then you end up with no tax at all !

It was 90% ITK and most of us hated it but did not move.

In The Know wrote:
andrew wrote:
It's common sense that rich will cut their hours or do jobs overseas to avoid more tax.

In the 60s thousands of people moved abroad to avoid Labour's 83% tax rates (and many never returned).
Then you end up with no tax at all !

Then end up like Greace.

JK2006 wrote:
It was 90% ITK and most of us hated it but did not move.

ah, but no internet then (so harder to keep your career going from abroad) !

Many did quit though ... eg Tom Jones, Engelbert, Rolling Stones (taking all their future earning with them) etc?

Its £10 Billion for the NHS didital teams now ... on top of the Billions already promised elsewhere.

Is there no end to the wheelbarrows-full of cash that these chancers will promise?

They are simply opportunists - looking for an opportunity !

now its £37 Billion for the NHS !
news.sky.com/story/election-2017-labour-...of-new-deal-10878231

This really is Cloud Cuckoo Land !

Then there is more money that was promised to the unemployed.

I can understand giving carer's more to match it up with Scotland whose CA just £70 but again the money has to come from somewhere.

NHS does not need 10 billion to protect it's IT system.

New Labour gave the NHS all the money in the world and it was still a disaster.