Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Try costing up is policies and telling us how the **** this country will afford them. The generalisations about getting most of it from taxing the rich/corporates more I know from experience don't work. See my stats on the 50% rate which I posted on here a few times.
Which policies?And stop going about bank deregulation. I manage a treasury department and I can see banks are probably the most highly regulated industry on the planet. They cannot move for red tape in some situations. Very frustrating and a drag on doing business.
The Tories wanted to deregulate mortgage lending completely. I've supplied links for that in the past. That was until the financial crash. Then they changed their minds. Luckily for them, the media in this country is an absolute joke, so they can keep pretending to be the party of economic wisdom and competence.As for foreign policy, any thoughts on what this IRA/Hezbollah supporter will do apart from wave a big white flag any time the going gets tough?
Depends whether Britain is actually threatened or not, or whether it's just a case of pointless, destructive interventionism.0 -
Trident would be a start.
Try costing up is policies and telling us how the **** this country will afford them. The generalisations about getting most of it from taxing the rich/corporates more I know from experience don't work. See my stats on the 50% rate which I posted on here a few times.You've still not told me which of his economic policies are going to be such a disaster. Anyway, if the people of Britain will have George "Let's copy the Irish" Osborne as Chancellor, why not Corbyn? Especially as I would imagine he opposed bank deregulation (can't be arsed to look up whether or not he did). Unlike a certain political party I could name.
Edit - Quotes went wrong. :oops:[/quote]
Well that might pay for 10%-20% at most of his nationalisation programme, never mind any other spending plans he has. What about the rest?
The point about whether we want a nuclear deterrent in an increasingly dangerous world is another debate but IMO always good to have a big stick just in case."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Try costing up is policies and telling us how the **** this country will afford them. The generalisations about getting most of it from taxing the rich/corporates more I know from experience don't work. See my stats on the 50% rate which I posted on here a few times.You've still not told me which of his economic policies are going to be such a disaster. Anyway, if the people of Britain will have George "Let's copy the Irish" Osborne as Chancellor, why not Corbyn? Especially as I would imagine he opposed bank deregulation (can't be arsed to look up whether or not he did). Unlike a certain political party I could name.
[/quote]Trident would be a start.
Edit - Quotes went wrong. :oops:
Not just Trident. He wants to withdraw from NATO.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/12/what-does-jeremy-corbyn-think
I suppose those nasty immoral jobs in defence would have to go too. No more armaments exports I suppose.0 -
You think that the Euro is under serious pressure? You don't work in a treasury department. We have a euro break up contingency plan at the ready for a good reason. Because it is a possibility. One size does not fit all and the issues in Southern Europe are good evidence.
I'd say that kicking out a couple of the weaker states is more likely. And poor economic performance in S. Europe isn't exactly new. There's a reason why so many northern European countries have such well established Italian communities going back decades.Seriously, some people are properly deluded if they think that Corbyns policies are sensible. That said, he'll never get a chance to put them into practice because the electorate are not that stupid - IMO of course. One day you might realise that backing a loser is not a good idea.
As I said before, if Corbyn's ideas are so bad, why does the right-wing media have to spend so much time mudslinging?0 -
Renationalise the energy companies to reduce bills. At what cost?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/12/what-does-jeremy-corbyn-think
The average profit margin for supplying energy to households in 2012 was 4.3%, up from 2.8% in 2011, with total profits from supplying energy to households and businesses rising from £1.25bn to £1.6bn last year.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/nov/25/energy-big-six-profit-customers-ofgem
In 2011 that would save each household about a quid a week. Money well spent, don't you think?0 -
High tax (covers quite a few policies) - counter productive, see previous evidence.Which policies?
High spending (covers quite a few policies) - unaffordable
Peoples QE (see impacts in link )
Nationalisation - unaffordable and creates inefficient monoplies; tried and failed before.
Private tenants right to buy - wrecks private housing market
Flexible pension age - unaffordable
To name but a few. Three of them we already know don't work as history has shown. The other three are unlikely to work either. Most people who understand business and economics will understand why."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
High tax (covers quite a few policies) - counter productive, see previous evidence.Which policies?
High spending (covers quite a few policies) - unaffordable
Peoples QE (see impacts in link )
Nationalisation - unaffordable and creates inefficient monoplies; tried and failed before.
Private tenants right to buy - wrecks private housing market
Flexible pension age - unaffordable
To name but a few. Three of them we already know don't work as history has shown. The other three are unlikely to work either. Most people who understand business and economics will understand why.
Well, I haven't actually seen what tax levels he is proposing.
People's QE - I think that's based on the assumption that there will be more QE at some point in the future. Why not use that to invest in infrastructure, as he wants? The very real benefits of an upgraded infrastructure outweigh the downsides speculated by the Economist.
Nationalisation - covered earlier in the thread. Many suppliers in the UK are owned by foreign governments. If the French and German governments can be trusted to run our utilities, why can't our own?
Right to buy - it's possible that the Tories' new taxes will force a load of landlords to sell up anyway, so Corbyn might not even need to tackle that little problem (and if it does work out like this, I will give credit to Osborne). I take it you are also opposed to the Tories' plan to extend RTB to housing association tenants?
Flexible pension age - for manual workers, depends where it's set. It might actually save money by not having them knackering their bodies by doing physically-demanding work until the age of 65 and then needing a load of NHS treatment. He's only made a suggestion, you'd have to wait and see what concrete policy proposals he comes out with. Also, if he links pension age to the average life expectancy for people working in that particular profession, then some people having lower retirement ages than others might be sensible.0 -
This needs to happen one way or the other.Private tenants right to buy - wrecks private housing market
The market is out of control compared to wages.
Too many people with vested interests to want to make it happen. Meanwhile too many people cannot afford any meaningful work/life balance.
Raising the "living wage" to £20/hour wouldn't solve the problem as it would simply make Britain uncompetitive. Housing costs need to go down.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Yes, no, and probably not.OK, so you think that Corbyn will be 'surprisingly popular', but not popular enough to win? Not really that popular then...or are you saying that he is massively unpopular with the general population now but might actually avoid getting totally wiped off the electoral map next time round?
This will be the 1980's all over again, when Labour lurched to the left under Michael Foot's leadership, but their own supporters kept telling them that was the right thing to do and they got wiped out at the ballot box. With a likely splintering of the party as more moderate MP's break away - again as seen in the 80's when the SDP was formed. If they stay on this track, Labour in 2020 will end up being a fringe protest party representing a minority of the population. Rock on 8)Fitter....healthier....more productive.....0 -
What is unusual about this is that it is the takeover (reverse takeover) of a mainstream political party by a relatively small band of hard left and union types who kobilised and joined up to vote their man into power. Who are not representative of the general electorate or even of the overall Labour voter base. While this was done by democratic election, it is only ever going to end in tears for Labour.
However looking back in recent political history a Labour lurch to the left is not new politics, we have seen it before in the 70's and 80's. And the large conservative majorities that resulted from it
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You haven't answered my question about how much all of this would cost and how it would be funded. Pretty fundamental question isn't it?
High tax (covers quite a few policies) - counter productive, see previous evidence.Which policies?
High spending (covers quite a few policies) - unaffordable
Peoples QE (see impacts in link )
Nationalisation - unaffordable and creates inefficient monoplies; tried and failed before.
Private tenants right to buy - wrecks private housing market
Flexible pension age - unaffordable
To name but a few. Three of them we already know don't work as history has shown. The other three are unlikely to work either. Most people who understand business and economics will understand why.
Well, I haven't actually seen what tax levels he is proposing.
People's QE - I think that's based on the assumption that there will be more QE at some point in the future. Why not use that to invest in infrastructure, as he wants? The very real benefits of an upgraded infrastructure outweigh the downsides speculated by the Economist.
Nationalisation - covered earlier in the thread. Many suppliers in the UK are owned by foreign governments. If the French and German governments can be trusted to run our utilities, why can't our own?
Right to buy - it's possible that the Tories' new taxes will force a load of landlords to sell up anyway, so Corbyn might not even need to tackle that little problem (and if it does work out like this, I will give credit to Osborne). I take it you are also opposed to the Tories' plan to extend RTB to housing association tenants?
Flexible pension age - for manual workers, depends where it's set. It might actually save money by not having them knackering their bodies by doing physically-demanding work until the age of 65 and then needing a load of NHS treatment. He's only made a suggestion, you'd have to wait and see what concrete policy proposals he comes out with. Also, if he links pension age to the average life expectancy for people working in that particular profession, then some people having lower retirement ages than others might be sensible."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
What is unusual about this is that it is the takeover (reverse takeover) of a mainstream political party by a relatively small band of hard left and union types who kobilised and joined up to vote their man into power. Who are not representative of the general electorate or even of the overall Labour voter base. While this was done by democratic election, it is only ever going to end in tears for Labour.
However looking back in recent political history a Labour lurch to the left is not new politics, we have seen it before in the 70's and 80's. And the large conservative majorities that resulted from it
Regardless of any one political beliefs, how on earth can you say that he isnt representative of the electorate? So an eton elite is???? no it is not, Corbyn has been an MP since 1983, so clearly his local electorate thinks he represents them?
He mobilised his core vote, the others didnt and he started out with a very very small base, but more to point stevo, YOU voted for him.
As for affordability, what is more waste ful? giving billions to private landlords who will put zero back into the property base or building social housing, collecting affrdable rent and reinvesting in more housing stock? you know just like we used too before we had a housing crisis and record levels of homelessness - even now the Gov prevents a council from spending the sale of a council house on a replcement, what a stupid policy.
I m not a fan of re nationalisation, there are bigger fish to fry and i suspect that this wont be JC's either, WHEN he sweeps into power
Spending 100's billions on a nuclear deterent, which we will never ever use on our own (draw me a scenario where the UK launches a nuclear strike - there by ending the human race - without involving the US ?) or increasing spending on conventional so we can counter act real threats?
This country is absolutely rolling money, its just very unevenly distributed and why is QE ok to prop up a failed banking model but some how disasterous if used to build a better education system and a nhs that can give cancer treatments to women instead of letting them die for lack of funds?
Anyway, i think you are protesting too much, anyone would think you are worried he might actually get in power! (even i have my doubts on that one)0 -
It's not about who he is but whose interests he is looking after - the bottom 10 or at best 20%. If the tories had that narrow an interest they wouldn't be in power
Why give money to any private enterprise? Why not nationalise everything? And why pick on that sector - supply and demand drives the prices more than any implied greed. As for taking the provision of housing wholly away from any private sector involvement, that's just another form of nationalisation. So where will you find the money to buy up the relevant public housing stock. You can't just baate sector rentals withour creating mass homelessness? Another left wing plan that doesnt work.
QE is appropriate at certain times of the econimic cycle but not now when we are doing well. See link above."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
'When he sweeps into power' If I thought he had half a chance I would never have voted for him. The general consensus outside of leftiebollox la-la land is that Labour are in for the biggest drubbing at the polls since the 1980's when Michael Foot was wiped out by Mrs. T. This time round looks a bit familiar. "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
-
Benefit system: £2.2 billion of fraud.
Tax loopoles/evasion: £42bn of fraud. Yet the emphasis in on the 'scroungers' ?!
Housing: Put at rent authority back in. There is no way the Tories are going to over turn a Thatcher move, is there?
Bombing ISIS: There are probably other methods like tracking down and freezing bank accounts that would be a much better way of stifling them. Bombing under the assumed and undemocratic basis of the 'self defence' loophole is questionable. There may be other ways to do it coercively but the direct aggression has not been discussed and is probably flawed but we don't know because the other options are not being explored.
Rail: Costs us £10.3bn to run! So Nationalising the Rail Network works?! The Japanese realised long ago that an effective communication network is intrinsic to a strong economy and heavily subsidise their rail travel.
The problem in the UK is that we continually look at the private sector to run essential services that will cost and have repeatedly cost more when handed over to the profit makers.
When are we going to see that everything from Housing to Communication to Health Services to Education really needs to be seen as a collective interest rather than an opportunity for private companies to make a profit, fed to us by the back door and under the banner of cost effectiveness, facilitated and enabled by the vested interests of right wing politicians; the puppets of the corporations?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cost-of-running-the-rail-network
It is without doubt that the inequality in the UK is huge. How would you Tory boys care to redress it? To simply shrug it off as a natural and acceptable side effect of capitalism is both naive and incorrect.
Trident: Complete and utter waste of money. We would never conceivably use it and a bigger investment in the MOD would be far more beneficial and probably create the same number of jobs (6000 in the Rosyth area is attached to Trident). Perhaps even committing to the NATO provision of 2.2% of GDP thereby keeping our position without the need for a nuclear deterrent. It is morally flawed because we cannot presume some sort of superiority and say to x,y and z countries you lot can have them and you lot can't have them. We need to work towards universal disarmament.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
So, Stevo you are saying that what we ve got now is working?
Housing, how can increasing social housing stock, gradually moving out private rented into social housing, lead to mass homelessness? thats rightybollox!
Moving back to social housing would be a very gradual affair, given the timescales involved in building new stock.
But think of all those now working tenants, that could (now afford and come off housing benefit) snap up those properties as landlords sell off their properties, and as most would have had their stock for while, they ll still make a decent profit, so win for them too, just not as big a one.
as for the country doing so well? i think we move in different circles and in different regions of the UK.
If you are so certain of a labour defeat, why do you come across as so worried? its a different world from Thatcher and Foot, society has moved on and we are not sooo dyed in the wool red or blue now a days.0 -
' The general consensus outside of leftiebollox la-la land is that Labour are in for the biggest drubbing at the polls since the 1980's when Michael Foot was wiped out by Mrs. T. This time round looks a bit familiar.
The Argentinians might not come to the Tories' rescue by invading the Falklands again.0 -
It is without doubt that the inequality in the UK is huge. How would you Tory boys care to redress it? To simply shrug it off as a natural and acceptable side effect of capitalism is both naive and incorrect.
They don't care.0 -
It is without doubt that the inequality in the UK is huge. How would you Tory boys care to redress it? To simply shrug it off as a natural and acceptable side effect of capitalism is both naive and incorrect.
They don't care.
That is probably right. After all, all you need is to have gone to Eaton, Daddy is on the executive committee of a PLC and no matter what results you get, you'll get a job in the City - probably as a stock broker or a merchant banker. What on earth would you know about poverty, inequality, poor education and public health services?
Those people just haven't worked hard enough have they? They should all move south and get a proper job seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
You haven't answered my question about how much all of this would cost and how it would be funded. Pretty fundamental question isn't it?
Carry out an analysis. If the returns are greater than the outlay, borrow the money then pay it back when your investment increases the nation's wealth. Just like governments, businesses and individuals do all the time.0 -
UK would do well to heavily incentive investment, which is at very low levels despite the ultra low interest environment, especially in infrastructure.
Big heavy tax relief on (infrastructure) investments (independently) deemed significantly advantageous for the public would help.
I'd also remove the current "luxury" tax whacked onto tampons and sanitary towels too. Small fry but it's ludicrous that it is considered a luxury.
I'd do something to make foreign purchases of existing UK residential property much more expensive and put in fairly punchy money laundering KYC regs to put brokers off selling abroad.
Heavier taxes on designated residential development land which remains undeveloped or under developed and link the tax (if feasible and possible) to price changes - tax is lower when local prices fall and higher as local prices rise. Could even give tax breaks for building more lower cost housing and even subsidies for where there is high poverty due to housing costs.0 -
Save money by not going through with the Tories' planned creation of loads more free schools and academies, despite the fact that there is no evidence they push up standards even with the billions of pounds chucked at this project.0
-
Plenty of things you can do.
Rail doesn't necessarily need to be privatised but I don't think anyone disputes its current state is a f*cking shambles and exceptionally expensive. A legacy of 20 years of under investment, since those firms running it had little incentives to do so.
At least Corbyn notices this. Solution isn't right given the current situation but why is he so alone in voicing that opinion. ?
He's right about housing. It's ludicrous a former college who earns over £150k a year can only afford to buy a 2 bed flat more than an hour away from his work.
The solution probably isn't Corbyn but this stuff isn't voiced in parliament so explicitly and this is the stuff people notice.0 -
Given that Corbyn is the death knell of the labour party, if you listen to some on here and certain labour party grandees. why have I received e-mails from the tories extolling the non-virtues of the man.
Surely if he is the harbinger that everybody (other than the deluded who voted for him) believe, why waste money dis-crediting him, surely he'll do that himself for free.
The political landscape in four years time will be different to what it is now, the tories are looking over their shoulder. Only time will tell.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Benefit system: £2.2 billion of fraud.
Tax loopoles/evasion: £42bn of fraud. Yet the emphasis in on the 'scroungers' ?!
Housing: Put at rent authority back in. There is no way the Tories are going to over turn a Thatcher move, is there?
Bombing ISIS: There are probably other methods like tracking down and freezing bank accounts that would be a much better way of stifling them. Bombing under the assumed and undemocratic basis of the 'self defence' loophole is questionable. There may be other ways to do it coercively but the direct aggression has not been discussed and is probably flawed but we don't know because the other options are not being explored.
Rail: Costs us £10.3bn to run! So Nationalising the Rail Network works?! The Japanese realised long ago that an effective communication network is intrinsic to a strong economy and heavily subsidise their rail travel.
The problem in the UK is that we continually look at the private sector to run essential services that will cost and have repeatedly cost more when handed over to the profit makers.
When are we going to see that everything from Housing to Communication to Health Services to Education really needs to be seen as a collective interest rather than an opportunity for private companies to make a profit, fed to us by the back door and under the banner of cost effectiveness, facilitated and enabled by the vested interests of right wing politicians; the puppets of the corporations?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cost-of-running-the-rail-network
It is without doubt that the inequality in the UK is huge. How would you Tory boys care to redress it? To simply shrug it off as a natural and acceptable side effect of capitalism is both naive and incorrect.
Trident: Complete and utter waste of money. We would never conceivably use it and a bigger investment in the MOD would be far more beneficial and probably create the same number of jobs (6000 in the Rosyth area is attached to Trident). Perhaps even committing to the NATO provision of 2.2% of GDP thereby keeping our position without the need for a nuclear deterrent. It is morally flawed because we cannot presume some sort of superiority and say to x,y and z countries you lot can have them and you lot can't have them. We need to work towards universal disarmament.
Maybe yes, maybe no. I too hope we never have to use it. The whole idea wasn't known as MAD for nothing was it but it seems to have worked thus far. Any nuclear power could be 99.99% sure the UK would not retaliate but they could never know for sure would they?
Give up the nuclear deterrent and we are asking America to shoulder the burden for our defence. Why should they? If we are not prepared to hold such weapons why should we expect to shelter under their umbrella?
Morally flawed it may be but these weapons cannot be uninvented, so the best we can do is to try to prevent their spread by whatever means. Universal disarmament is a pipe dream. As long as these weapons exist we must maintain the capability.
Trident is a long term policy, these systems are not produced overnight. We are looking to safeguard our defence for decades. Giving them up when we can't predict world events for months nevermind decades would in my view be premature.0 -
The fact is that Labour have elected a leader that at best only appeals to some people who would have voted Labour anyway. To win the next election Labour has to attract support from right of centre voters. Bearing in mind that Miliband couldn't achieve it, why would a further lurch to the left do the trick?0
-
You would think that the people putting forward these policies have costed and planned for the funding in an achievable manner. Trouble is as far as I can see, they haven't. Probably because they would not like the answer. Neither have you by the sound of it. All very wel, saying they want to all these things if they can't realistically achieve them.You haven't answered my question about how much all of this would cost and how it would be funded. Pretty fundamental question isn't it?
Carry out an analysis. If the returns are greater than the outlay, borrow the money then pay it back when your investment increases the nation's wealth. Just like governments, businesses and individuals do all the time.
Let the delusion continue..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
In four years time four years worth of the "grey vote" will be dead. Four years worth of those who are/feel disenfanchised will be eligible. It won't be Cameron it'll probably by Osbourne who is tory leader at the next election. The tory attitude to the under 25's amongst others is awful and that may be the thing that I hope bites them on the arse.The fact is that Labour have elected a leader that at best only appeals to some people who would have voted Labour anyway. To win the next election Labour has to attract support from right of centre voters. Bearing in mind that Miliband couldn't achieve it, why would a further lurch to the left do the trick?Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
You would think that the people putting forward these policies have costed and planned for the funding in an achievable manner. Trouble is as far as I can see, they haven't. Probably because they would not like the answer. Neither have you by the sound of it. All very wel, saying they want to all these things if they can't realistically achieve them.You haven't answered my question about how much all of this would cost and how it would be funded. Pretty fundamental question isn't it?
Carry out an analysis. If the returns are greater than the outlay, borrow the money then pay it back when your investment increases the nation's wealth. Just like governments, businesses and individuals do all the time.
Let the delusion continue...
Funnily enough, no, I haven't carried out research into every one of Jeremy Corbyn's suggestions about which policies he may (or may not) include in Labour's 2020 manifesto. Then again, neither have you.
Now Corbyn's the leader of the Labour party, he will have far more resources at his disposal, and I would expect him to be able to more fully explain what his policies are, how he will fund them and what benefits can be derived from them in the future.0 -
I think under Corbyn there will be a fundamental change in how policy is formulated,it will not be from the top down.
You would think that the people putting forward these policies have costed and planned for the funding in an achievable manner. Trouble is as far as I can see, they haven't. Probably because they would not like the answer. Neither have you by the sound of it. All very wel, saying they want to all these things if they can't realistically achieve them.You haven't answered my question about how much all of this would cost and how it would be funded. Pretty fundamental question isn't it?
Carry out an analysis. If the returns are greater than the outlay, borrow the money then pay it back when your investment increases the nation's wealth. Just like governments, businesses and individuals do all the time.
Let the delusion continue...
Funnily enough, no, I haven't carried out research into every one of Jeremy Corbyn's suggestions about which policies he may (or may not) include in Labour's 2020 manifesto. Then again, neither have you.
Now Corbyn's the leader of the Labour party, he will have far more resources at his disposal, and I would expect him to be able to more fully explain what his policies are, how he will fund them and what benefits can be derived from them in the future.
None of us know what the future holds, I;m greatful of having a proper choice at the next GE.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0
