So Polly approves then

What a cornucopia of delights is here. The leaked Labour manifesto is a treasure trove of things that should be done, undoing those things that should never have been done and promising much that could make this country infinitely better for almost everyone.

The sub has a sense of humour here perhaps:

By aiming big and challenging the Tories’ monstrous cuts, Jeremy Corbyn has put the onus on Theresa May to respond

Ms. May is going to respond by howling with laughter of course.

26 comments on “So Polly approves then

  1. Ritchie seems to have stopped his fascination with Scotland and the SNP and starting to sniff Corbyn’s behind again. He’s not seen this in the manifesto then:

    “Our fundamental belief is that the second chamber should be democratically elected. In the interim period we will seek to end the hereditary principle and reduce the size of the current house of Lords”

  2. “monstrous cuts”

    It’s a nice situation for both parties. Tories can pretend they are making cuts, like they were voted in to do, and gain support from their voters. Labour can pretend Tories are making cuts, which Labour will stop, and gain support from their voters. It is in no one’s interest to point out the “cuts” are not monstrous.

  3. “It is in no one’s interest to point out the “cuts” are not monstrous”

    Or indeed actual cuts.

  4. You’re all wrong!!!

    I’ve read the draft manifesto and I’m voting Labour now. It was the free ice cream every day wot did it for me.

  5. The ‘Indy’ is proclaiming Corbyn’s suicide note a win:

    “The ComRes survey shows around half of people support state ownership of the train network (52 per cent), energy market (49 per cent) and Royal Mail (50 per cent).”

    Anyone else find this rather odd?

  6. Reading through the manifest took me right back to Bob Newhart and his monkeys: “To be or not to be, that is the gzordinik”

    And,

    “I don’t like the Labour Party, but I don’t mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like the Labour Party, denigrate means ‘put down”

  7. @Martin

    Gordon Brown coined the term ‘negative growth’, so these are obviously ‘negative cuts’.

    Corbyn is so barmy that even that Brown – yes, Brown! – has emerged in the daylight to condemn him.

  8. “Monstrous cuts”.

    “In tomorrow’s Guardian, we take the government to task for not reducing the deficit fast enough”.

  9. Gordon Brown coined the term ‘negative growth’, so these are obviously ‘negative cuts’.

    Gordon “Bottler” Brown was the same prick who announced a zero percent rise in spending in 2009.

    Mr Brown rose indignantly to his feet and pointed out that on the contrary, “Total spending will continue to rise and it will be a zero per cent rise in 2012-13.”

  10. “No, this is not a repeat of the “longest suicide note in history” 1983 manifesto. There is no reprise here of the killer pledges that caused the party to split back then – pulling out of Europe, out of Nato with unilateral disarmament, protectionist exchange and import controls, or nationalising pharmaceutical, building materials and many more industries.”

    What the left doesn’t understand is that the world has moved on since then, because they’re still stuck in the pre-Thatcher world, desperately wanting a return to it (well, at least the bits of it that they like). Having council run bus services is as mad, maybe madder in 2017 than nationalising building materials in 1983.

    There’s a generation that has been raised with no thought of buses being run by the council. I mean, the council doesn’t sell you food or mobile phones or PCs. Why would it provide buses? It’s only if you’re old enough to remember local bus companies that this might seem like a good idea.

    (and BTW we had 2 in Swindon – local bus company and Stagecoach, and there was fuck all difference in price and quality).

  11. BiW,

    > Having council run bus services is as mad

    Here’s the exact line from the draft manifesto:
    > “we will enable the creation of municipal bus companies”

    That’s exactly the opposite of what they should do. London has the right idea: government says what routes should be run, then contracts them out to private bus companies. Some of those bus companies happen to be ultimately owned by foreign governments, but that’s irrelevant: they’re competing in a free market.

    Incidentally, can anyone find a searchable copy of the draft manifesto? Text search doesn’t work on the one on Scribd.

  12. Err, seems to be a little bit of mangling or downright revisionism from Polly there. The 1983 manifesto didn’t cause the party to split. The Gang of Four left in 1981. The 1983 manifesto is the result of that (partly; some of the major policy issues are from the ’81 conference), but the roots are earlier.

    Not that I am particularly fussed.

  13. The list of victim groups (for free ice cream) seemed quite narrow/restricted? Loads it missed out; gingers and fatties were obvious ones…

  14. Andrew M,

    “That’s exactly the opposite of what they should do. London has the right idea: government says what routes should be run, then contracts them out to private bus companies.”

    I wouldn’t call that the right idea. The right idea is that private bus companies put buses on the road and compete for business. There’s a few “socially useful” services that the state should support, but generally, leave it to the market. That’s what we do out here.

  15. Thos. Fuller: Corbyn is so barmy that even that Brown – yes, Brown! – has emerged in the daylight to condemn him.

    Brown?

    Daylight?

    Nah, must be an hologram.

  16. Bison

    Not so much daylight as twilight, or more accurately late dusk, and he was only visible for 35 seconds. Remarkable but true; verified the following day by DNA analysis of the slime-trail. Of course, no one dares to start excavating or venture further.

  17. Thos. – are you sure? Rumour had it that he was running a B&B on Gruinard.

  18. Polly is just pining for the 70’s, when her face didn’t look like a wedding cake left out in the rain.

  19. I remember the council buses.
    And the bus strikes.

    The bit I’m most amused by is that 100,000 council houses will be built a year.
    By whom, with what material and where is glossed over.

    Perhaps we need to import a load of workers from overseas…?

  20. In about 1600 or so the House of Lords had about 50 members, so there’s good justification to chop it down to size.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.