Home | About | Donate

Labour Party's Leaked Draft Manifesto Reveals Plan to 'Transform' UK


#1

Labour Party's Leaked Draft Manifesto Reveals Plan to 'Transform' UK

Nadia Prupis, staff writer

For the first time in a long time, a political document was leaked, and the public was happy about what it said.

The U.K. Labour Party's draft election manifesto (pdf), leaked Thursday, revealed a left-leaning, populist plan for the country that includes raising corporate tax rates, increasing spending on healthcare and social programs, nationalizing public services, and axing higher education tuition fees.


#2

That's not correct. The Labor and Conservative parties, among other parties, are running against each other. All Corbyn and May are running for the seat in their own (secure - or they wouldn't be party leaders) constituency. Prime ministers are not anything like presidents - their position is analogous to the US's Speaker of the House (and there is no Senate either). Referring to the election as two individuals running against each other is an annoyingly US-centric error.

But anyway, this is certainly good news - and is going to be a critical test case for a long overdue move of the discourse to the left worldwide. I'm confused about the critic describing the Tories as "party that’s trying to drag us back to the 1950s", those were golden days for social democracy in the UK as Attlee's programs and nationalisations came into full force. The following Churchill government dared not meddle with them if they wanted to stay in power.


#3

I think he meant the 1850's.


#4

While we here seem to require an impeachment, shouldn't the British be thinking it's about time to end
the throne - Royalty?


#5

Yeah more like the Dickens days...


#6

Bernie Sanders. Jill Stein. Pay attention to this guy, Jeremy Corbyn. Except for the trident crap.


#8

Present royalty is directly descended from Alfred the Great of the House of Wessex (849-899AD) who fought off the Vikings. Are you suggesting something that's survived for 1200 years is obviously useless and means nothing to anybody? Do you value history and culture that it engenders so lightly?


#9

If you've never been to England and observed this conversation amongst the
locals, you have missed a sight indeed.

I would watch, but I wouldn't bring it up....lol


#10

Pray that this is the start of the swing back to simple caring for our fellow humans.

Might even see STEWARDSHIP towards our Earth.


#11

Are you then suggesting that Royals are superior in some way to other humans?

Or do you support the concept of democracy and "All are equal"?

The dynasty is of German paternal descent and was originally a branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, itself derived from the House of Wettin, and it succeeded the House of Hanover as monarchs in the British Empire following the death of Queen Victoria, wife of Albert, Prince Consort. The houses of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Windsor have provided five British monarchs to date, including four kings and the present queen, Elizabeth II.

The name was changed from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to the English Windsor in 1917 because of anti-German sentiment in the British Empire during World War I.[1]


#12

I've been to England but have never heard that conversation.
Of course, currently lots of reports of "reptilian" sightings at the Palace
and other very questionable involvements by "Royals."

Other websites offer clearer photos of the incident, but ....

What do you hear??????


#13

The British royalty has no political power whatsoever - while they parliamentary and electoral system is superior to the USA every imaginable way:

  1. No gerrymandering of constituencies

  2. No big money in political candidates pockets

  3. No possibility of parliamentary deadlock (the parliament is dissolved and new elections called if it happens)

  4. New elections with only a month's notice - preventing an entire commercial industry of political corruption

  5. No frighteningly powerful, practically dictatorial "unitary executive" who:

a. Presides over all of the most vital functions of government

b. Can only be removed under an arcane and complex process involving "high crimes and misdemeanors"

c. Is elected under a manifestly absurd, utterly anachronistic "electoral college" that allows his (and it most decidedly is always a "he") election even when he loses the popular vote by millions!

And so, considering all of that, I'll take the British System - Queen and all - anytime! All it takes is a short trip to that far better-run country to our north to see what the USA could have been had those powdered-wig racist slave-owning wealthy aristocrats failed in their laughably called "revolution" 230 years ago...

Go Ottawa Senators (the namesake of which has not no actual political power)! Spank those Yankee-Rust-Belt Penguins!


#14

It looks like young, but decidedly adult, man to me. Some tryst gone wrong. Big deal...


#15

No one has ever believed that --
and certainly they are dependent upon the population/government for their wealth.
And, certainly Princess Diana was murdered to save the their hides.

That doesn't mean that the US political system isn't 100% corrupt, that our schools aren't a sham
and ever more so today with charter schools, but it also corrupts everything it touches or has ever
touched.

Also true that last I checked, your representatives were 1:75,000 and ours are 1:750,000.
Again, the US political system is criminal and that's been true since the first landing/
invasion here and right through the Constitution - save the Bill of Rights.

And so you can frequently find comments such as UK/CIA and UK-MKULTRA.

Take a look at our Founders and what they actually did with our Constitution which was to create
an Elite Patriarchy with immense influence and control over our "people's" government, the nation's
wealth and natural resources and animal-life -- and endowed them with land grants.
They also not only committed genocide vs the native American, but set new precedents of cruelty,
brutality, torture/murder and every other kind of abuse of them, their children and the African enslaved
here. The license for that cruelty and murder was the Papal Edict to "Enslave them or kill them."
And they indeed supported slavery for the wealthy which guaranteed the Civil War which also benefitted
them in dividing the nation into two camps of hatred which still echo today.

We are still in that same gene pool.

If there is a competition around the world on worst governments, the US has won; US is a terrorist nation.
But so has the UK cooperated in it.

And I think you do have to answer these questions ....

Are you then suggesting that Royals are superior in some way to other humans?

Or do you support the concept of democracy and "All are equal"?

And the very real questions of your "Royals" involvement with sexual perversions.


#16

My understanding is that the Governor General of Australia was appointed by the Queen, and then this happened in Australia in 1975:

BTW:


#17

No, I'm just saying that something that's survived for millenia must be of some value to people or they would have got rid of it years ago, a fact proven in that polls show the majority of people within the UK are in favour of retaining the monarchy. If you believe in democracy, why do you want to ignore the will of the majority of people? That makes YOU the dictator, a quasi-monarch of sorts.

No one is saying, 'Royals are superior in some way to other humans,' I don't know where you plucked that idea from and I don't know anyone who thinks like that? You can have a democracy and a constituional monarchy, most European countries do, they are not incompatible.

I'm not sure why you posted the link about the House of Saxe Coburg, I'm already aware of much of the history of the British monarchy? If you were posting it to suggest that the present day royals are not descended from Alfred the Great, it doesn't do that in that the UK invited the protestant Hanoverian monarch George I to become King because he was a descendant of the British Royal line via his grandmother who was the daughter of James I, so the line remains unbroken. Parliament chose him because they didn't want the other offspring who were catholic (Jacobite) as that was a time of sectarian turmoil.

Take a look at this report: http://worldhappiness.report/ed/2017/

You'll see that of the top ten countries in the world happiness index, seven of them are monarchies (Sweden, Holland, Norway, Demark, Canada, New Zealand and Australia) and that the majority of those at the bottom are republics. How do you explain that, then? Monarchy must be doing something right for people's well-being, political and social stability, and equality.


#18

The Australians had a referendum in 1999 on whether to become a republic with a President or retain the Queen as their head of state. They voted to remain with the Queen as their head of state by a landslide. What's so great about republics? I'd rather live in a monarchy with deep-rooted, stable, history and tradition like Sweden than the people's republic of China, the USA, Uzbekistan or other glorious 'republics' around the world.


#19

None of your first three statements are true.


#20

Greenwich,

Disclosure: I am a USAn. My nick clearly indicates that. Never been to the UK, closest thing was Canada and Jamaica.

I am aware of the Gough Whitlam incident and the power of the Royal Governor General to dismiss parliament - but no power to interfere in any other way. Normal elections followed - in which they could have voted the Labour Party right back in (but didn't). Australia, Canada, NZ, Jamaica, etc are fully free to leave their British realm and become a republic at any time with just a referendum. They are freely choosing not to - and the example of the USA is probably the biggest reason for that choice.


#21

The very notion of "Royal" suggests a superiority and certainly the life style and trappings suggest the same.
Including the need to bow before "Royals."

Certainly the majority of citizens in the UK supported Princess Diana but I'm not sure the same can be said
for the rest of the "Royals." There are no elections for "Royals" of course, but then again here in the US our
elections are rigged which makes them meaningless.

Democracy works when there is an informed citizenry which is rare to find these days.
See: Operation Mockingbird which was being drafted two years before the end of WWII and which has not
only been imposed upon the US but which has effected every nation.

You're very involved and impressed with the pedigree of the "Royals," it seems, which you seem to be
implying qualifies them in some way for leadership by breeding. And, of course, the name change to "Windsor"
had to do with disappearing their German ancestry.

At the same time, they are "Elites" and it was Elites all over the world who supported Hitler and the rearming
of Germany via front companies and through the services of Allen Dulles and Prescott Bush and the law firm
of "Sullivan & Cromwell" and the use of Holland America Line as a front -- and other front companies.

The British Throne of course reigns in Canada, New Zealand and Australia --
And there is a good deal to be admired of Holland, Norway, Denmark --
but we should also note that Norway, Australia, Canada are prominent in news of pedophile rings, as well
as the UK. And that we here in the US are being seriously weakened by human/child trafficking and organ
trafficking which travels with and parallels trafficking of drugs.

Thatcher, Blair and others have shown they are willing to cooperate with the US in its warmongering all
over the world and I don't think that is either something that the people of the nation support.