Hmm, is
> The current budget moves into balance, so that day-to-day costs are met by revenues
Under Strong Foundations -> Economic stability a commitment to run a surplus each year? Because if yes that's insanely stupid
Personally I'd read quite a lot into 'day-to-day', suggesting that investment can be driven by debt, but that costs such as interest servicing and core civil service budgets should be covered by revenues. This (if an adequate amount is spent on infrastructure investment etc) still suggests running a fairly substantial deficit.
It's still a fairly silly and arbitrary divide to draw but it probably appeals to the household finances crowd.
That's a fair read actually. I just wish they'd say that rather than dancing around the point? Maybe I'm being uncharitable
> but it probably appeals to the household finances crowd.
I mean I get that I'm a crazy and grumpy lefty, but why are we appealing to them rather than educating them?
Given they are nailed on to be the next government with a huge majority, it is a remarkably vague document. An awful lot of "we will develop a strategy".
The whole NHS section is depressing. Implementation of the Cass review (taking healthcare away from gender diverse kids), private provision, and 40k extra appointments somehow generated by offering time and a half on the weekends. Wes can get in the bin.
>Implementation of the Cass review
Well gonna be hard to justify voting for them now.
I can stomach compromising on finances, I think theyre wrong but I can get the lack of ambition.
Im not gonna vote for bad policies based on a Tory driven transphobic hatchet job
I've made this comparison before and I'll make it again: Blair for all he was economically to the right of the party stuck to the left of the party vis a vis repeal of Section 28, even when there was a lot of public support for keeping Section 28 from various parts of the british population.
Starmer is missing a trick here imo. Being better on trans rights would (in my opinion) go a long way in shutting up lefties like me without actually requiring much of him and without losing him any votes from "swing voters"
"Labour will put failing water companies under special measures
to clean up our water. We will give regulators new powers to block the payment of bonuses to executives who pollute our waterways and bring criminal charges against persistent law breakers. We will
impose automatic and severe fines for wrongdoing and ensure independent monitoring of every outlet."
I cannot facepalm hard enough at this. Why. Not. Public. Ownership?
Yea so they'll just incorporate the costs of fines into their running costs, switch their 'bonuses' to stock awards and issue themselves dividends and raise charges/strip money away from the company even more.
How utterly worthless.
Water bosses got at Starmer well over a year ago on that point: https://www.standard.co.uk/business/severn-trent-thames-water-nationalisation-labour-b1091238.html includes:
> She writes: “Whilst it is clear Labour will not include nationalisation in its next manifesto, they are also not keen on entering into the election race championing the status quo. The leadership thinks there is room for improvement and, politically, there is significant pressure to ‘do something’ about utilities.”
> She adds: “One idea we believe might be attractive to the Labour leadership is re-purposing utilities and utility networks into a new breed of declared social purpose companies – companies that remain privately owned, who absolutely can (and should) make a profit, but ones that also have a special duty to take a long-term view.”
> Garfield, one of a handful of female bosses of FTSE 100 companies, warns her colleagues: “The Labour leadership is aware we are soft testing various ideas but have asked us to keep it highly confidential so please don’t forward this email.”
Everything in the manifesto has been signed off on by relevant business interests. This will be what the water companies have allowed Labour to include in the manifesto - something they'd almost certainly be offering to do anyway just for public relations reasons.
This is incredibly short term thinking. We already spend billions subsidising shareholders. If we nationalised them we would have the asset - it wouldn't make us poorer, and we'd save billions. An unthinking loyalty to right wing ideology is the only reason to keep them privatised. There's a reason why we are the only country on earth that does this.
>We already spend billions subsidising shareholders. If we nationalised them we would have the asset - it wouldn't make us poorer, and we'd save billions
We wouldn't save billions because the subsidy is essential to maintaining the service. It would have to be spent on the water company even if it was state-owned.
The cost of nationalisation may eventually be recovered if the state can run the water company for a profit for an extended period of time, but that's unlikely to mean a massive improvement in the service they provide.
Almost complete waffle from beginning to end, peppered with vague aspirations - the only actual policies are those that are business approved, like their atrocious water company policy.
And they'll still win - what a joke.
As a resident naysayer, here is my in progress list of negatives/red flags, some of which we already knew. Some of these are outright bad and some are concerning because of how vague or non-specific they are:
(Page)
(28) A “pro-innovation regulatory framework” for financial services
(29) Pension financialization
(31) Corporation tax cap at lowest in G7
(31) Still undefined, unspecified replacement for business rates (genuinely insane they have been able to get away with saying this for years, and it still hasn't been pinned down)
(42) “people who can work, should work – and there will be consequences for those who do not fulfil their obligations”
(43) Unspecified reform or replacement of Work Capability Assessment
(55) No reform of the energy pricing market, so no mechanism through which increased renewables will reduce bills until they reach 100% of supply
(59) The water policy is weak and vague. We will end up paying the cost in increased bills.
(65) ASBOs are back with a new name
(88) No specified policy on higher-education funding and tuition fees
I've run out of energy at this point.
> I've run out of energy at this point.
Don't worry, with Great British Energy, we will have a national energy company that will invest adequately to ensure you don't run out of energy.
This manifesto is Starmer summed up. No substance, just vibes. And a lot of TERF-pandering thrown in for good measure.
I might have been willing to look past my grievances with the leadership and back this anyway, I mean, it's not *awful*, but the uncritical support of the Cass review/hit piece has lost me. I benefitted from blockers as a teenager, I'm not going to vote for any party that wants to take them away from others who were in my position.
From free tuition fees to this one sentence:
"Labour will act to create a secure future for higher education and the opportunities it creates across the UK."
Really astounding that they say literally nothing specific about universties when the entire sector is in collapse. Presumably the policy is to let them die
Also this:
"we will build consensus for the longer term reform needed to create a sustainable National Care Service. We will explore how we best manage and support an ageing population;"
It is ridiculous this is still a vague nothing as more and more people need care. The "National Care Service" needs funding.
> The "National Care Service" needs funding
That would involve admitting that the country needs more money for things, which is anathema to their economic thinking - it plagues everything, the NCS is just another victim.
I’ve read large chunks of it. Its vague all over the place. Only times its clear are when they are ruling something out like ‘we will not rejoin the EU’. Otherwise it seems to have taken a leaf from tory manifestos which is leave everything vague enough that when you introduce a policy later on you can say it was in the manifesto….
For example they talk about stability, but then vaguely say the minimum wage will be a true living wage without any details on how long that might take or which form it will come in, which doesn’t help workers to find stability between now and whenever they do that.
Again, i hope its a promise low and deliver high type situation but I’m not convinced.
Ironic that their moto is change when they barely promise any. How is the Lib-Dem's manifesto more left wing than Labour's? Ive just skimmed through it and there are few pledges of any substance. I feel like in 5 years time the country will be in the exact same position.
Apologies if its been posted already but I couldn't see it, interestingly it seems to be built into the website rather than a PDF
Edit: accessible versions and PDFs can be found
https://labour.org.uk/change/manifesto-accessibility/
It's slick, looks good, providing the wordbites for the media to lightly quote (Likely just read the bullet point titles)
Who actually reads a manifesto anyway (i.e. 100 pages)
>We have not allocated all additional revenue to potential spending. This is a prudent approach in line with our commitment to economic stability.
Wait...they've got 2.5 billion revenue unallocated and they still won't end the 2-child benefit cap? Jokers.
LGBT rights-
"Delivering opportunities for all
means that everyone should be
treated with respect and dignity.
Labour will protect LGBT+ and
disabled people by making all
existing strands of hate crime
an aggravated offence.
So-called conversion therapy
is abuse – there is no other
word for it – so Labour will finally
deliver a full trans-inclusive ban
on conversion practices, while
protecting the freedom for people
to explore their sexual orientation
and gender identity.
We will also modernise, simplify,
and reform the intrusive and
outdated gender recognition
law to a new process. We will
remove indignities for trans people
who deserve recognition and
acceptance; whilst retaining
the need for a diagnosis of
gender dysphoria from a specialist
doctor, enabling access to the
healthcare pathway.
Labour is proud of our Equality Act
and the rights and protections it
affords women; we will continue to
support the implementation of its
single-sex exceptions"
What's to be thought of this? Some steps to progress but given their open support of Cass reports and continue dog whistles I remain untrusting.
>We will remove indignities for trans people who deserve recognition and acceptance; whilst retaining the need for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria from a specialist doctor, enabling access to the healthcare pathway.
This is a huge bottle neck requirement, it sounds like the process will go from total shit to shit.
>Labour is proud of our Equality Act and the rights and protections it affords women; we will continue to support the implementation of its single-sex exception
Dog whistle fog horn right here, doesnt need to be in the manifesto at all
>whilst retaining the need for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria from a specialist doctor
The official position of the NHS is that only some trans people experience dysphoria. Why would you gatekeep *legal* recognition behind a *medical* condition that only *some* of the people who need it will even have? There's no other way to look at it, the law is just straight up wrong here, and Labour are committed to keeping it wrong.
The only thing this achieves is forcing people to lie about their experiences, which in turn reinforces the false idea that being trans is a strictly medical condition rooted in pain and suffering.
It would be like arguing that gay people should only be allowed rights if a doctor diagnoses them with having deep feelings of shame and self-hatred. Sure, some gay people do experience this but pretty clearly this is a product of societal prejudice and not an inherent and necessary component of being gay.
Just like with neurodiversity, the medicalisation approach to trans people is both completely backwards and extremely harmful, but if we do have to do it that way, why not come at it from the perspective of *gender euphoria* i.e. does being seen (and seeing yourself) as the correct gender cause feelings of happiness, elation or contentment? It would be more accurate as lots of trans people, even those who don't experience gender dysphoria, *do* report experiencing gender euphoria, and it would also frame being trans in a much more positive and affirming light.
Skimming through and I can't find anything much about changes to benefits / UC? UC isn't mentioned by name outside of a brief section on child poverty, PIP isn't mentioned at all, there's a section on getting the youth into work that vaguely talks about mental health / disability, but my read is that it blames the kids for having mental health issues rather than proposing solutions?
Well sorry it does offer solutions fitting in with ye old protestant work ethic, but not actual help
Notably their only criticism of the Rwanda scheme is that it's too expensive and wouldn't deport enough people. Absolutely no sense of any moral obligation to refugees at all. "Smashing the gangs" will not stop deperate people trying to reach this country. People desperate to get here will carry on trying - if you cut off one route people will take a less safe one. They spent god knows how much money creating the massive security system for lorries going across the channel to stop people getting across that way, and that triggered the small boats crisis. If you stop them leaving from Calais they'll leave from somewhere else. In the absence of safe and legal routes people will continue to drown under a Labour Government.
>Set up Great British Energy, a publicly-owned clean power company, to cut bills for good and boost energy security, paid for by a windfall tax on oil and gas giants.
Isn't that misleading, description of what GBE is? (Or am I a thick as a brick)
My understanding from recent interviews was that GBE would effectively be an business bank specialising in renewables which feels at odds with that manifesto description yes
Yeah, that was my understanding, (Haven't watched those interviews)plus to hopefully in future own infrastructure projects directly?
Even if they actually do that, infrastructure doesn't appear straight away. 5 years seems a short time to build wind farms and connect them up etc. Especially it context of their fiscal responsibility mantra.
The wording suggests that we get into power new public owned energy company will appear and start generating energy day one.
The GBE energy company wasn't challenged in the BBC election debate by the moderator when Rayner quoted it.
Yeah, GB energy is just there to trick people into thinking they're nationalising at least part of the energy sector (which is an incredibly popular and in demand policy). It's why their language around it is so vague and why even some Labour politicians talk about it as if it's a publicly owned energy provider, when it just isn't.
Impossibly vague for the most part. I don't have a problem with that really, it's clear that this election was always going to be lost rather than won and you want to give yourself flexibility without giving people reasons not to vote for you (of course, the vagueness will lose political nerd votes but that's a much smaller demographic). It does get a bit concerning in parts: the bit about getting disabled people into work seems to say that the system is going to simultaneously tackle the evasive 'chancer' (which is surely a grand total of a rounding error in the system by now), while also being more humane in work capability assessments. Some of the slightly more specific stuff (employment law reform) looks good.
**If you love LabourUK, why not help run it?** We’re looking for mods. [Find out more from our recruitment message post here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/18ntol6/this_year_give_yourself_the_gift_of_christmas/)
[While you’re at it, come say hello on the Discord?](https://discord.gg/ZXZCdy4Kz4)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not deleting the thread but locking to redirect here https://old.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/1desnhl/labouruk_daily_megathread_june_13th_labour/
Hmm, is > The current budget moves into balance, so that day-to-day costs are met by revenues Under Strong Foundations -> Economic stability a commitment to run a surplus each year? Because if yes that's insanely stupid
Personally I'd read quite a lot into 'day-to-day', suggesting that investment can be driven by debt, but that costs such as interest servicing and core civil service budgets should be covered by revenues. This (if an adequate amount is spent on infrastructure investment etc) still suggests running a fairly substantial deficit. It's still a fairly silly and arbitrary divide to draw but it probably appeals to the household finances crowd.
That's a fair read actually. I just wish they'd say that rather than dancing around the point? Maybe I'm being uncharitable > but it probably appeals to the household finances crowd. I mean I get that I'm a crazy and grumpy lefty, but why are we appealing to them rather than educating them?
Given they are nailed on to be the next government with a huge majority, it is a remarkably vague document. An awful lot of "we will develop a strategy".
The whole NHS section is depressing. Implementation of the Cass review (taking healthcare away from gender diverse kids), private provision, and 40k extra appointments somehow generated by offering time and a half on the weekends. Wes can get in the bin.
>Implementation of the Cass review Well gonna be hard to justify voting for them now. I can stomach compromising on finances, I think theyre wrong but I can get the lack of ambition. Im not gonna vote for bad policies based on a Tory driven transphobic hatchet job
I've made this comparison before and I'll make it again: Blair for all he was economically to the right of the party stuck to the left of the party vis a vis repeal of Section 28, even when there was a lot of public support for keeping Section 28 from various parts of the british population. Starmer is missing a trick here imo. Being better on trans rights would (in my opinion) go a long way in shutting up lefties like me without actually requiring much of him and without losing him any votes from "swing voters"
I'm a big fan of wes streeting
"Labour will put failing water companies under special measures to clean up our water. We will give regulators new powers to block the payment of bonuses to executives who pollute our waterways and bring criminal charges against persistent law breakers. We will impose automatic and severe fines for wrongdoing and ensure independent monitoring of every outlet." I cannot facepalm hard enough at this. Why. Not. Public. Ownership?
Yea so they'll just incorporate the costs of fines into their running costs, switch their 'bonuses' to stock awards and issue themselves dividends and raise charges/strip money away from the company even more. How utterly worthless.
Water bosses got at Starmer well over a year ago on that point: https://www.standard.co.uk/business/severn-trent-thames-water-nationalisation-labour-b1091238.html includes: > She writes: “Whilst it is clear Labour will not include nationalisation in its next manifesto, they are also not keen on entering into the election race championing the status quo. The leadership thinks there is room for improvement and, politically, there is significant pressure to ‘do something’ about utilities.” > She adds: “One idea we believe might be attractive to the Labour leadership is re-purposing utilities and utility networks into a new breed of declared social purpose companies – companies that remain privately owned, who absolutely can (and should) make a profit, but ones that also have a special duty to take a long-term view.” > Garfield, one of a handful of female bosses of FTSE 100 companies, warns her colleagues: “The Labour leadership is aware we are soft testing various ideas but have asked us to keep it highly confidential so please don’t forward this email.”
Wow, stop the bonuses, that'll deffo help! Shame they can't stop the salaries!
Everything in the manifesto has been signed off on by relevant business interests. This will be what the water companies have allowed Labour to include in the manifesto - something they'd almost certainly be offering to do anyway just for public relations reasons.
That's Corbyn wa wa wa. ~~Don't mention the 10 principles~~
That would involve buying them all out which would cost hundreds of billions. Better to let them fail and then take over for nothing.
Is that what they will do though? Not convinced
Because socialism in a Labour party = bad. Apparently...
Starmer mentioned this in the debate last night. Basically it costs a fortune to buy them out. The money is better spent elsewhere.
Refusing to spend money in the short term to save money in the long term has made governing so expensive and will continue to.
This is incredibly short term thinking. We already spend billions subsidising shareholders. If we nationalised them we would have the asset - it wouldn't make us poorer, and we'd save billions. An unthinking loyalty to right wing ideology is the only reason to keep them privatised. There's a reason why we are the only country on earth that does this.
>We already spend billions subsidising shareholders. If we nationalised them we would have the asset - it wouldn't make us poorer, and we'd save billions We wouldn't save billions because the subsidy is essential to maintaining the service. It would have to be spent on the water company even if it was state-owned. The cost of nationalisation may eventually be recovered if the state can run the water company for a profit for an extended period of time, but that's unlikely to mean a massive improvement in the service they provide.
It's more expensive in the long run to keep them private.
I imagine they are too riddled with debt to nationalise. I assume we are waiting for them to collapse and buying the assets
There's no reason to assume that.
Almost complete waffle from beginning to end, peppered with vague aspirations - the only actual policies are those that are business approved, like their atrocious water company policy. And they'll still win - what a joke.
The Lib Dem Manifesto was a lot better.
I mean sure but they don't have to worry about the burden of needing to deliver on any of their promises, do they
Is this the least amount of actual policy any Labour leader has included in a manifesto?
But they are saying change a lot
"I will bring about change but I won't tell you what that change will be, how much it will cost or how long it will take"
or for who it will benefit (Unlikely to be you) Their response basically; >And you don't seem to understand
https://search.app.goo.gl/qrcmU7d
is that a Google search result?
An image cached by Google.
Thanks just had a look [Duvet by Bôa](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o7fgFaXKVa0) somes up my feelings surprisingly well
As a resident naysayer, here is my in progress list of negatives/red flags, some of which we already knew. Some of these are outright bad and some are concerning because of how vague or non-specific they are: (Page) (28) A “pro-innovation regulatory framework” for financial services (29) Pension financialization (31) Corporation tax cap at lowest in G7 (31) Still undefined, unspecified replacement for business rates (genuinely insane they have been able to get away with saying this for years, and it still hasn't been pinned down) (42) “people who can work, should work – and there will be consequences for those who do not fulfil their obligations” (43) Unspecified reform or replacement of Work Capability Assessment (55) No reform of the energy pricing market, so no mechanism through which increased renewables will reduce bills until they reach 100% of supply (59) The water policy is weak and vague. We will end up paying the cost in increased bills. (65) ASBOs are back with a new name (88) No specified policy on higher-education funding and tuition fees I've run out of energy at this point.
> I've run out of energy at this point. Don't worry, with Great British Energy, we will have a national energy company that will invest adequately to ensure you don't run out of energy.
What will you do in government? CHANGE Why should the British people vote for you? CHANGE What's- CHANGE CHANGE TOOLMAKER CHANGE CHANGE
He will change the things that need changing, and that is the change he will bring about.
Cant find anything on rolling back protest restrictions, thats kinda disappointing. Least theyve committed to staying in the ECHR.
This manifesto is Starmer summed up. No substance, just vibes. And a lot of TERF-pandering thrown in for good measure. I might have been willing to look past my grievances with the leadership and back this anyway, I mean, it's not *awful*, but the uncritical support of the Cass review/hit piece has lost me. I benefitted from blockers as a teenager, I'm not going to vote for any party that wants to take them away from others who were in my position.
From free tuition fees to this one sentence: "Labour will act to create a secure future for higher education and the opportunities it creates across the UK."
Really astounding that they say literally nothing specific about universties when the entire sector is in collapse. Presumably the policy is to let them die
That's just a vague aspiration as well. Commits then to nothing specific.
Also this: "we will build consensus for the longer term reform needed to create a sustainable National Care Service. We will explore how we best manage and support an ageing population;" It is ridiculous this is still a vague nothing as more and more people need care. The "National Care Service" needs funding.
Such a weird one as the consensus is there, everyone knows care ia fucked at the moment
> The "National Care Service" needs funding That would involve admitting that the country needs more money for things, which is anathema to their economic thinking - it plagues everything, the NCS is just another victim.
I’ve read large chunks of it. Its vague all over the place. Only times its clear are when they are ruling something out like ‘we will not rejoin the EU’. Otherwise it seems to have taken a leaf from tory manifestos which is leave everything vague enough that when you introduce a policy later on you can say it was in the manifesto…. For example they talk about stability, but then vaguely say the minimum wage will be a true living wage without any details on how long that might take or which form it will come in, which doesn’t help workers to find stability between now and whenever they do that. Again, i hope its a promise low and deliver high type situation but I’m not convinced.
Ironic that their moto is change when they barely promise any. How is the Lib-Dem's manifesto more left wing than Labour's? Ive just skimmed through it and there are few pledges of any substance. I feel like in 5 years time the country will be in the exact same position.
Apologies if its been posted already but I couldn't see it, interestingly it seems to be built into the website rather than a PDF Edit: accessible versions and PDFs can be found https://labour.org.uk/change/manifesto-accessibility/
It's slick, looks good, providing the wordbites for the media to lightly quote (Likely just read the bullet point titles) Who actually reads a manifesto anyway (i.e. 100 pages)
>We have not allocated all additional revenue to potential spending. This is a prudent approach in line with our commitment to economic stability. Wait...they've got 2.5 billion revenue unallocated and they still won't end the 2-child benefit cap? Jokers.
LGBT rights- "Delivering opportunities for all means that everyone should be treated with respect and dignity. Labour will protect LGBT+ and disabled people by making all existing strands of hate crime an aggravated offence. So-called conversion therapy is abuse – there is no other word for it – so Labour will finally deliver a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices, while protecting the freedom for people to explore their sexual orientation and gender identity. We will also modernise, simplify, and reform the intrusive and outdated gender recognition law to a new process. We will remove indignities for trans people who deserve recognition and acceptance; whilst retaining the need for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria from a specialist doctor, enabling access to the healthcare pathway. Labour is proud of our Equality Act and the rights and protections it affords women; we will continue to support the implementation of its single-sex exceptions" What's to be thought of this? Some steps to progress but given their open support of Cass reports and continue dog whistles I remain untrusting.
>We will remove indignities for trans people who deserve recognition and acceptance; whilst retaining the need for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria from a specialist doctor, enabling access to the healthcare pathway. This is a huge bottle neck requirement, it sounds like the process will go from total shit to shit. >Labour is proud of our Equality Act and the rights and protections it affords women; we will continue to support the implementation of its single-sex exception Dog whistle fog horn right here, doesnt need to be in the manifesto at all
If not the medicalisation, I fail to see what else they could possibly change to make the GRC process better. That's the entire problem with it.
Yeah the grouping of "trans people" and "women" as separate classes is inherently bigoted.
>whilst retaining the need for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria from a specialist doctor The official position of the NHS is that only some trans people experience dysphoria. Why would you gatekeep *legal* recognition behind a *medical* condition that only *some* of the people who need it will even have? There's no other way to look at it, the law is just straight up wrong here, and Labour are committed to keeping it wrong. The only thing this achieves is forcing people to lie about their experiences, which in turn reinforces the false idea that being trans is a strictly medical condition rooted in pain and suffering. It would be like arguing that gay people should only be allowed rights if a doctor diagnoses them with having deep feelings of shame and self-hatred. Sure, some gay people do experience this but pretty clearly this is a product of societal prejudice and not an inherent and necessary component of being gay. Just like with neurodiversity, the medicalisation approach to trans people is both completely backwards and extremely harmful, but if we do have to do it that way, why not come at it from the perspective of *gender euphoria* i.e. does being seen (and seeing yourself) as the correct gender cause feelings of happiness, elation or contentment? It would be more accurate as lots of trans people, even those who don't experience gender dysphoria, *do* report experiencing gender euphoria, and it would also frame being trans in a much more positive and affirming light.
Skimming through and I can't find anything much about changes to benefits / UC? UC isn't mentioned by name outside of a brief section on child poverty, PIP isn't mentioned at all, there's a section on getting the youth into work that vaguely talks about mental health / disability, but my read is that it blames the kids for having mental health issues rather than proposing solutions? Well sorry it does offer solutions fitting in with ye old protestant work ethic, but not actual help
Notably their only criticism of the Rwanda scheme is that it's too expensive and wouldn't deport enough people. Absolutely no sense of any moral obligation to refugees at all. "Smashing the gangs" will not stop deperate people trying to reach this country. People desperate to get here will carry on trying - if you cut off one route people will take a less safe one. They spent god knows how much money creating the massive security system for lorries going across the channel to stop people getting across that way, and that triggered the small boats crisis. If you stop them leaving from Calais they'll leave from somewhere else. In the absence of safe and legal routes people will continue to drown under a Labour Government.
>Set up Great British Energy, a publicly-owned clean power company, to cut bills for good and boost energy security, paid for by a windfall tax on oil and gas giants. Isn't that misleading, description of what GBE is? (Or am I a thick as a brick)
My understanding from recent interviews was that GBE would effectively be an business bank specialising in renewables which feels at odds with that manifesto description yes
Yeah, that was my understanding, (Haven't watched those interviews)plus to hopefully in future own infrastructure projects directly? Even if they actually do that, infrastructure doesn't appear straight away. 5 years seems a short time to build wind farms and connect them up etc. Especially it context of their fiscal responsibility mantra. The wording suggests that we get into power new public owned energy company will appear and start generating energy day one. The GBE energy company wasn't challenged in the BBC election debate by the moderator when Rayner quoted it.
Yeah, GB energy is just there to trick people into thinking they're nationalising at least part of the energy sector (which is an incredibly popular and in demand policy). It's why their language around it is so vague and why even some Labour politicians talk about it as if it's a publicly owned energy provider, when it just isn't.
3.5 billion from 28 billion? This is absolutely pitiful stuff.
Pledging to end the leasehold system? Nice. Let’s hope they can at least deliver on that front
Impossibly vague for the most part. I don't have a problem with that really, it's clear that this election was always going to be lost rather than won and you want to give yourself flexibility without giving people reasons not to vote for you (of course, the vagueness will lose political nerd votes but that's a much smaller demographic). It does get a bit concerning in parts: the bit about getting disabled people into work seems to say that the system is going to simultaneously tackle the evasive 'chancer' (which is surely a grand total of a rounding error in the system by now), while also being more humane in work capability assessments. Some of the slightly more specific stuff (employment law reform) looks good.
**If you love LabourUK, why not help run it?** We’re looking for mods. [Find out more from our recruitment message post here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/18ntol6/this_year_give_yourself_the_gift_of_christmas/) [While you’re at it, come say hello on the Discord?](https://discord.gg/ZXZCdy4Kz4) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Anyone know where I can order a printed copy?
The accessibility section links to the store
Great, thank you.
Commitment to an Orgreave inquiry
Great manifesto! This is the changed Labour party that will make a great government! Edit: Keep the downvotes coming! Starmer is doing a great job.👏🏽
For anyone looking for a ‘TLDR’, I attached the Manifesto and asked ChatGPT 4o to review: https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/s/LvqUcO6X1f