Huge crowds don't mean much in the context of a wider electorate though.
General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Huge crowds don't mean much in the context of a wider electorate though.
Happy to bet you £50 on that.
Crowd sizes don't really mean much. You can have a strong set of loyal supporters while also failing to appeal enough to the general public.
Whoops
Wait...which of those things is untrue?
The left always has excellent support at the grass root level. Passionate ideologues that seem genuinely surprised when they realise that the wider public is generally not politically engaged and have little interest in their brand of politics.
Isn't it mostly people earring over £80,000 that will be taxed more. It's implied by both the tory ad(Fair enough I guess)and the BBC article as Labour taxing normal people if they come into power. Not to mentioned that BBC report id hardly a report at all, it's pretty much just the shite attention grabbing headline.
Also it's funny because it's Kuenssberg.
More spending, more borrowing, more taxes is a plan I can entirely get behind. I thought that was precisely the idea?
EDIT - Ahh, we're annoyed because she didn't put 'only for rich cnuts' in her headline.
EDIT - Ahh, we're annoyed because she didn't put 'only for rich cnuts' in her headline.
Interesting that Farage was quite complimentary about the Labour manifesto on LBC earlier. Could some ex-Labour UKIPs actually be persuaded to move back instead of jumping to the Tories?
Labour seem to be building some momentum now.
Labour seem to be building some momentum now.
Well yeah it would be nice.
Taking time off work costs money. Most people can't afford to take more than a few days off work. They have rent or mortgage to make, kids to feed, bills to pay.
I definitely see the point.
There will be a whole load of people required to actually manage the ex franchises, it's not like the franchise expires and these services just become part of the public sector. Deluded to think zero cost, and it's not exactly like the public sector has a good track record of cost efficient service delivery.
East Coast Main Line, so successful the Tories flogged it cause it made them look nad
I should say I don't think Kuenssberg is actually a secret tory propagandist trying to take down the Labour Party, more that she is a bit of rubbish journalist.
what's nad?
It's being called a tax and spend manifesto everywhere, because it is one. From what I've seen Labour have been embracing that.
Nope... just looking after the nuclear codes
Journalist of the year I think you'll find. She's an award winning bullshit artist.
You're right on this one. A rare example of professional railway managers being allowed to run a railway without political interference. I don't know much about the health service but I've always wondered how they would get on if the managers were allowed to manage instead of being reorganised for political reasons every four years or so. I realise organisations need to change, I'm just not sure politicians are always the people to dictate what it is.
What seem like two media blunders, blue and red.
&
Union leader’s comments overshadow £50bn Labour manifesto pledge
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/16/labour-proposes-45p-income-tax-above-80000
Not sure how the Tory candidate thought that a 'no comment' would pass muster there.
&
Union leader’s comments overshadow £50bn Labour manifesto pledge
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/16/labour-proposes-45p-income-tax-above-80000
Not sure how the Tory candidate thought that a 'no comment' would pass muster there.
What seem like two media blunders, blue and red.
&
Union leader’s comments overshadow £50bn Labour manifesto pledge
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/16/labour-proposes-45p-income-tax-above-80000
Not sure how the Tory candidate thought that a 'no comment' would pass muster there.
What's her constituency like? Can probably almost guarantee her own opinion goes against whatever the preference was there.
Hove, near DOTA country. Labour incumbent with a 1,000ish majority if memory serves.
She's the woman who claimed she healed a deaf man's hearing by putting her hands on the man’s ears and saying “Be healed in Jesus’ name.”
And from looking around, it was a solid Remain vote. I wonder what she voted for, then...
Kuenssberg works for BBC so she has to be neutral in her reporting. Yet her article doesn't actually differ itself from the tory attack piece,the only reference to taxes is the amount Labour will raise and more importantly no mention of who is going to be taxed, no mention of where Labour will be spending the money or really any polices. And also this is just days after Kuenssberg said that it was embarrassing that a Labour MP had quit during the election, only to have people point out to her that the MP in question had been done for texting kids, wife beating and has now being questioned by the police over rape allegations.
It's piss poor stuff from Kuenssberg.
It's just fecking irritating that we are even talking about a BBC journalist.
Hopefully that boost's Peter Kyle's chances a little.
This is both awful and amazing.
This is pure Burgon, he's an absolute artist
We don't have nuclear codes!!!!!!
Seriously, unlike America, we do not have nuclear codes. All of our nuclear submarines are capable of acting autonomously - without waiting on any command from London. In fact, even more bizarrely, when the UK nuclear weapons go to America for maintenance, they sit alongside the US ones (which do require codes from the White House), but anyone could theoretically detonate ours.
Anyway, as Corbyn is "no first use" I wouldn't worry about that.
Also, Piers Morgan is an idiot.
Businesses are run to make profit so shareholders and investors can pocket the money from the dividends. The drive to increase profits often means a squeeze in terms of quality which we see happening in the railways. So fares rise so the company can increase its profit margin not to increase investment.
I've not done the costings but removing the need to pay out dividends when renationalising the railways should free up a massive chunk of money to use for the investment that's so badly needed in the system.
Neither has Jeremy, and unfortunately he hasn't even pretended to, which was my point.
But yes, when Thatcher sold our national assets because she had to pay for the extra three million unemployed that were needed to put the lower classes back in their place then she didn't care what it would cost long-term, I agree with that.
Nick Robinson is doing his best to keep up with her.
I have a thing for Emily Maitlis. And Laura Kuenssberg as well.
yeah but come on the Tories don't give a feck about that mate, that's why they seem to think that £7.50 an hour is a liveable living wage
I said this to my missus earlier. Corbyn is getting big crowds out to hear what he has to say. But, in reality, It is only a small percentage of the actual population of the places he is visiting.
You know it doesn't matter what it would cost in the short term to do some of the renationalisations that Jeremy wants because in the long term they woul bring in profits which will be reinvested into the system to improve service and once that's done then profits can be used for other things like paying any borrowing that may be needed. As one of the largest economies in the world we can't just continue to have this fear of debt as a compromise for poor service across the board.
The biggest problem with rail, utilities etc is that they often are run by foreign companies who have no vested interest in the United Kingdom other than pure profit. Arriva for example which runs a lot of train and bus services among others is owned by Deutsche Ban which is wholly owned by the German state. Now why would Germany want to improve service while it's profits suffer?
These being core services for the public should mean that they are owned by the public regardless of the short term cost to take them back because in the long run we will be much much better off.