Join the Labour Party and save your country!

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

We need an expansive state, it needs controlling and its powers need to be regulated but we need looking after... i ve driven to Chichester and back today, without the state, that journey just would not be possible, if i d been in an acident, it would the Police and health service i d rely on.... when you add in the important stuff, driving standards, military, health, education transport and we def need the state, the individual, no matter how much money we earn, all these things above cannot be provided by the individual.

I've got news for you. We already have an expansive state - it accounts for somewhere around 43% of everything we produce as a nation.

All of the things you list above already happen so I see no argument to simply spend more. There is also little correlation between state spending as a % of GDP and the relative succes of different nations:
https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-spending.htm
In some cases it looks more like an indicator of who's more likely to go bust.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

We need an expansive state, it needs controlling and its powers need to be regulated but we need looking after... i ve driven to Chichester and back today, without the state, that journey just would not be possible, if i d been in an acident, it would the Police and health service i d rely on.... when you add in the important stuff, driving standards, military, health, education transport and we def need the state, the individual, no matter how much money we earn, all these things above cannot be provided by the individual.

I've got news for you. We already have an expansive state - it accounts for somewhere around 43% of everything we produce as a nation.

All of the things you list above already happen so I see no argument to simply spend more. There is also little correlation between state spending as a % of GDP and the relative succes of different nations:
https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-spending.htm
In some cases it looks more like an indicator of who's more likely to go bust.

as i said, needs regulating etc and of course, effective, i do agree that just throwing money at a problem isnt always a great idea but i was arguing against a smaller state being compatible with social liberal policies!
... not what we've already got and one reason we seem to spend so much is on benefits esp housing and working benefits in particular, this is an extremely wasteful use of public money, its all very well Hammond boasting we ve 2m extra workers etc but not much use if they cost the state more than if they sat at home, work over 30hours/week with 2 dependant kids and its easy to double your take home pay with benefits and obv pay zero tax too, its why the Gov has no money.

surrey_commuter

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

We need an expansive state, it needs controlling and its powers need to be regulated but we need looking after... i ve driven to Chichester and back today, without the state, that journey just would not be possible, if i d been in an acident, it would the Police and health service i d rely on.... when you add in the important stuff, driving standards, military, health, education transport and we def need the state, the individual, no matter how much money we earn, all these things above cannot be provided by the individual.

I've got news for you. We already have an expansive state - it accounts for somewhere around 43% of everything we produce as a nation.

All of the things you list above already happen so I see no argument to simply spend more. There is also little correlation between state spending as a % of GDP and the relative succes of different nations:
https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-spending.htm
In some cases it looks more like an indicator of who's more likely to go bust.

as i said, needs regulating etc and of course, effective, i do agree that just throwing money at a problem isnt always a great idea but i was arguing against a smaller state being compatible with social liberal policies!
... not what we've already got and one reason we seem to spend so much is on benefits esp housing and working benefits in particular, this is an extremely wasteful use of public money, its all very well Hammond boasting we ve 2m extra workers etc but not much use if they cost the state more than if they sat at home, work over 30hours/week with 2 dependant kids and its easy to double your take home pay with benefits and obv pay zero tax too, its why the Gov has no money.

to me "small state" is a concept rather than an absolute

rjsterry

In the context of UK politics, we are arguing about the difference between very slightly smaller and very slightly bigger.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

In the context of UK politics, we are arguing about the difference between very slightly smaller and very slightly bigger.

and revenue tends to move even less (between 35-37% of GDP)

graeme_s-2

The lack of subtlety in these debates always annoys me. Someone says "maybe we should have our railway franchises owned by the state" and people who agree with everything the state currently does in the UK, but think that's a step too far run around screaming "Marxist!". Someone else suggests that perhaps Channel 4 could be privatised and suddenly they're an anarcho-capitalist.

Ultimately almost all of us would agree that the state has a role and the private sector has a role but we're quibbling over the finest details of exactly which services should be provided by whom. Screaming "communist" at someone who wants quality publicly owned services alongside a thriving private sector doesn't help anybody.

mamba80

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

In the context of UK politics, we are arguing about the difference between very slightly smaller and very slightly bigger.

and revenue tends to move even less (between 35-37% of GDP)

that very small % can make a huge difference to peoples lives, as the monitory amounts are large.

As Graeme above says, there is a balance and both sides have great ideas, its a pity we are always (in gov) at each others throats.
Having said that the current Tories are particularly hard nosed and to little benefit.

Stevo_666

Graeme_S wrote:

The lack of subtlety in these debates always annoys me. Someone says "maybe we should have our railway franchises owned by the state" and people who agree with everything the state currently does in the UK, but think that's a step too far run around screaming "Marxist!". Someone else suggests that perhaps Channel 4 could be privatised and suddenly they're an anarcho-capitalist.

Ultimately almost all of us would agree that the state has a role and the private sector has a role but we're quibbling over the finest details of exactly which services should be provided by whom. Screaming "communist" at someone who wants quality publicly owned services alongside a thriving private sector doesn't help anybody.

Come on then, wow us with some subtle arguments.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Graeme_S wrote:

The lack of subtlety in these debates always annoys me. Someone says "maybe we should have our railway franchises owned by the state" and people who agree with everything the state currently does in the UK, but think that's a step too far run around screaming "Marxist!". Someone else suggests that perhaps Channel 4 could be privatised and suddenly they're an anarcho-capitalist.

Ultimately almost all of us would agree that the state has a role and the private sector has a role but we're quibbling over the finest details of exactly which services should be provided by whom. Screaming "communist" at someone who wants quality publicly owned services alongside a thriving private sector doesn't help anybody.

Come on then, wow us with some subtle arguments.

Ears burning? It's an all round problem, not helped by a lot of the discussion being squeezed into 140 characters. The DUP labelled as being like the Taliban. UKIP labelled as fascists (if only they were that organised ). It's all pretty lazy.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Graeme_S wrote:

The lack of subtlety in these debates always annoys me. Someone says "maybe we should have our railway franchises owned by the state" and people who agree with everything the state currently does in the UK, but think that's a step too far run around screaming "Marxist!". Someone else suggests that perhaps Channel 4 could be privatised and suddenly they're an anarcho-capitalist.

Ultimately almost all of us would agree that the state has a role and the private sector has a role but we're quibbling over the finest details of exactly which services should be provided by whom. Screaming "communist" at someone who wants quality publicly owned services alongside a thriving private sector doesn't help anybody.

Come on then, wow us with some subtle arguments.

Ears burning? It's an all round problem, not helped by a lot of the discussion being squeezed into 140 characters. The DUP labelled as being like the Taliban. UKIP labelled as fascists (if only they were that organised ). It's all pretty lazy.

Maybe, but its partly what this thread is for, given the light hearted vein in which it was started

Sometimes people make broad brush statements such as 'we need an expansive state'. Most people know it's leftiebollox, but it needs a similar broad brush answer

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Graeme_S wrote:

The lack of subtlety in these debates always annoys me. Someone says "maybe we should have our railway franchises owned by the state" and people who agree with everything the state currently does in the UK, but think that's a step too far run around screaming "Marxist!". Someone else suggests that perhaps Channel 4 could be privatised and suddenly they're an anarcho-capitalist.

Ultimately almost all of us would agree that the state has a role and the private sector has a role but we're quibbling over the finest details of exactly which services should be provided by whom. Screaming "communist" at someone who wants quality publicly owned services alongside a thriving private sector doesn't help anybody.

Come on then, wow us with some subtle arguments.

Ears burning? It's an all round problem, not helped by a lot of the discussion being squeezed into 140 characters. The DUP labelled as being like the Taliban. UKIP labelled as fascists (if only they were that organised ). It's all pretty lazy.

Maybe, but its partly what this thread is for, given the light hearted vein in which it was started

Sometimes people make broad brush statements such as 'we need an expansive state'. Most people know it's leftiebollox, but it needs a similar broad brush answer

i meant a really really really huge expansive state..... one that you can pay for.

Maybe you can explain how a smaller state helps social care, provides for enough nurses or avoids fires in tower blocks etc

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Graeme_S wrote:

The lack of subtlety in these debates always annoys me. Someone says "maybe we should have our railway franchises owned by the state" and people who agree with everything the state currently does in the UK, but think that's a step too far run around screaming "Marxist!". Someone else suggests that perhaps Channel 4 could be privatised and suddenly they're an anarcho-capitalist.

Ultimately almost all of us would agree that the state has a role and the private sector has a role but we're quibbling over the finest details of exactly which services should be provided by whom. Screaming "communist" at someone who wants quality publicly owned services alongside a thriving private sector doesn't help anybody.

Come on then, wow us with some subtle arguments.

Ears burning? It's an all round problem, not helped by a lot of the discussion being squeezed into 140 characters. The DUP labelled as being like the Taliban. UKIP labelled as fascists (if only they were that organised ). It's all pretty lazy.

Maybe, but its partly what this thread is for, given the light hearted vein in which it was started

Sometimes people make broad brush statements such as 'we need an expansive state'. Most people know it's leftiebollox, but it needs a similar broad brush answer

Fair point. I took Graeme S's post to refer to discussion in the media more generally.

graeme_s-2

rjsterry wrote:

Fair point. I took Graeme S's post to refer to discussion in the media more generally.

I did mean in general, but I think it infects all parts of our national discussion. Serious discussion about fairly small changes in the way specific services are funded is shoved aside in place of wildly inaccurate name calling.

It happens on this forum (on other discussions, not just this one), and it happens in the house of commons. See the Tories accusing Milliband of being a marxist and then trotting out the exact same policy 2 years later.

Stevo_666

Looks like JC's magic money tree has been growing in the warm weather:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40547740
Only £100 billion to find to wipe out student debt, nothing to worry about.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Looks like JC's magic money tree has been growing in the warm weather:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40547740
Only £100 billion to find to wipe out student debt, nothing to worry about.

i believe i heard on Radio 4 that some 70% of student debt will never be repaid, so a huge amount of money needs to be found in any case, its a failed system.
Bare in mind that the Tories by pursuing Brexit (and of course allowing it to happen in the first place!!!) will find the UK paying monies owed to the EU in the 10's of billions, with out any benefit to the UK what-so-ever.

Regardless, perhaps May can ask JC for his input at their next joint Cabinet meeting lol.

rick_chasey

I'm sure Stevo's looking forward to the Tories reaching out to Labour.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Looks like JC's magic money tree has been growing in the warm weather:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40547740
Only £100 billion to find to wipe out student debt, nothing to worry about.

i believe i heard on Radio 4 that some 70% of student debt will never be repaid, so a huge amount of money needs to be found in any case, its a failed system.
Bare in mind that the Tories by pursuing Brexit (and of course allowing it to happen in the first place!!!) will find the UK paying monies owed to the EU in the 10's of billions, with out any benefit to the UK what-so-ever.

Regardless, perhaps May can ask JC for his input at their next joint Cabinet meeting lol.

Nearer 30% in the link I posted, not 70%. That just leaves a gap of £70 billion to fund, so all is well in Labour's financial plans

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Looks like JC's magic money tree has been growing in the warm weather:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40547740
Only £100 billion to find to wipe out student debt, nothing to worry about.

i believe i heard on Radio 4 that some 70% of student debt will never be repaid, so a huge amount of money needs to be found in any case, its a failed system.
Bare in mind that the Tories by pursuing Brexit (and of course allowing it to happen in the first place!!!) will find the UK paying monies owed to the EU in the 10's of billions, with out any benefit to the UK what-so-ever.

Regardless, perhaps May can ask JC for his input at their next joint Cabinet meeting lol.

Nearer 30% in the link I posted, not 70%. That just leaves a gap of £70 billion to fund, so all is well in Labour's financial plans

From Parliamentary committee
Adrian Bailey, the committee chairman, said: “The Government’s estimates indicate the size of outstanding student debt will increase to more than £330 billion by 2044. With the prospect of a large potential black hole in the Government’s budget figures, Government needs to get its act together and properly calculate how much of these student debts are ever likely to be paid back.”

May wants to cut interest payments, Dominic Green wants to look to see if they can be scrapped and paid out of taxation and most importantly, Rayner says they wont commit to wiping ALL debt unless we can afford it... fail Stevo, try again... can you comment on May calling for x party support from Labour?

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Looks like JC's magic money tree has been growing in the warm weather:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40547740
Only £100 billion to find to wipe out student debt, nothing to worry about.

i believe i heard on Radio 4 that some 70% of student debt will never be repaid, so a huge amount of money needs to be found in any case, its a failed system.
Bare in mind that the Tories by pursuing Brexit (and of course allowing it to happen in the first place!!!) will find the UK paying monies owed to the EU in the 10's of billions, with out any benefit to the UK what-so-ever.

Regardless, perhaps May can ask JC for his input at their next joint Cabinet meeting lol.

Nearer 30% in the link I posted, not 70%. That just leaves a gap of £70 billion to fund, so all is well in Labour's financial plans

From Parliamentary committee
Adrian Bailey, the committee chairman, said: “The Government’s estimates indicate the size of outstanding student debt will increase to more than £330 billion by 2044. With the prospect of a large potential black hole in the Government’s budget figures, Government needs to get its act together and properly calculate how much of these student debts are ever likely to be paid back.”

May wants to cut interest payments, Dominic Green wants to look to see if they can be scrapped and paid out of taxation and most importantly, Rayner says they wont commit to wiping ALL debt unless we can afford it... fail Stevo, try again... can you comment on May calling for x party support from Labour?

Nice bit of weasel wording from Rayner - as all they have to do is define 'affording it' as being able to borrow the cash :roll: . The alternative is of course massive tax hikes or some combo of the two.

Try again

surrey_commuter

what do we think about the Great Repeal Bill giving the Govt power to amend laws without parliamentary approval? might not look like such a good idea if there is a new Govt with JC at the helm.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Looks like JC's magic money tree has been growing in the warm weather:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40547740
Only £100 billion to find to wipe out student debt, nothing to worry about.

i believe i heard on Radio 4 that some 70% of student debt will never be repaid, so a huge amount of money needs to be found in any case, its a failed system.
Bare in mind that the Tories by pursuing Brexit (and of course allowing it to happen in the first place!!!) will find the UK paying monies owed to the EU in the 10's of billions, with out any benefit to the UK what-so-ever.

Regardless, perhaps May can ask JC for his input at their next joint Cabinet meeting lol.

Nearer 30% in the link I posted, not 70%. That just leaves a gap of £70 billion to fund, so all is well in Labour's financial plans

From Parliamentary committee
Adrian Bailey, the committee chairman, said: “The Government’s estimates indicate the size of outstanding student debt will increase to more than £330 billion by 2044. With the prospect of a large potential black hole in the Government’s budget figures, Government needs to get its act together and properly calculate how much of these student debts are ever likely to be paid back.”

May wants to cut interest payments, Dominic Green wants to look to see if they can be scrapped and paid out of taxation and most importantly, Rayner says they wont commit to wiping ALL debt unless we can afford it... fail Stevo, try again... can you comment on May calling for x party support from Labour?

Nice bit of weasel wording from Rayner - as all they have to do is define 'affording it' as being able to borrow the cash :roll: . The alternative is of course massive tax hikes or some combo of the two.

Try again

No, you are just ignoring the issue, which is student loans are not working, massive uncollected debt, which will mean tax rises or spending cuts.
Labour are not in power and GE isnt on the horizon so Labour can afford, like all opp parties, to talk aloud about their aims and plans.

i ll ask for the 3rd time... what do you think about May and her call for x party support from Labour? you know, that extreme left wing party which she tried to destroy by calling a snap GE... you really couldnt make this stuff up....

kingstongraham

mamba80 wrote:

i ll ask for the 3rd time... what do you think about May and her call for x party support from Labour? you know, that extreme left wing party which she tried to destroy by calling a snap GE... you really couldnt make this stuff up....

She doesn't need support from the whole party, it could even open up splits in Labour again.

Strong and stable, eh? I thought the ECJ was a red line? And both parties wanted out of the single market? I'm lost as to what she wants support for, exactly.

letap73

KingstonGraham wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

i ll ask for the 3rd time... what do you think about May and her call for x party support from Labour? you know, that extreme left wing party which she tried to destroy by calling a snap GE... you really couldnt make this stuff up....

She doesn't need support from the whole party, it could even open up splits in Labour again.

Strong and stable, eh? I thought the ECJ was a red line? And both parties wanted out of the single market? I'm lost as to what she wants support for, exactly.

Maybe May is a Bike Radar Forumite - saw the title of this thread and was inspired.
I think she may have been Speed King.

rick_chasey

KingstonGraham wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

i ll ask for the 3rd time... what do you think about May and her call for x party support from Labour? you know, that extreme left wing party which she tried to destroy by calling a snap GE... you really couldnt make this stuff up....

She doesn't need support from the whole party, it could even open up splits in Labour again.

Strong and stable, eh? I thought the ECJ was a red line? And both parties wanted out of the single market? I'm lost as to what she wants support for, exactly.

Currently what she says is nothing to do with her beliefs (not that that was the case previously), because she is a lame duck PM.

bendertherobot

By election in Newton Abbott?

narbs

bendertherobot wrote:

By election in Newton Abbott?

I await the weasel excuses from the usual sources on here.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

i ll ask for the 3rd time... what do you think about May and her call for x party support from Labour? you know, that extreme left wing party which she tried to destroy by calling a snap GE... you really couldnt make this stuff up....

Don't care too much - per the BBC new article she only asked for their ideas rather than constant criticism. Sounds a bit like the sort of thing some people on the BREXiT thread should do

narbs

bendertherobot wrote:

By election in Newton Abbott?

Well, she's been suspended, not sure how long for as yet.

Wonderful apology from Morris mind. It was 'unintentional'. Of course, what she meant to say was cabbage but, you know how it is, n****r just slips out.

surrey_commuter

narbs wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

By election in Newton Abbott?

I await the weasel excuses from the usual sources on here.

Should have been instantly sacked with Redwood and cash hanging by a thread. How can you not react when somebody says that?

kingstongraham

I honestly don't know what the phrase she used means. I'm only 14 years younger than her.