Labour ?

Hungryhalibut posted:

Huge posted:

Just one question, what collection of other public services are going to take the cuts needed to pay for this shopping list?

The answer is to increase taxes. Good public services don't come for free. In the UK the public sector currently takes 38% of GDP. In Germany it's 44%. You can't have German quality services with a US scale state. If we keep on the path to 36%, we will get a crumbling NHS, failing schools, roads falling to bits, a worse train services, no buses, hardly any police on the beat, no children's centres, no libraries, monthly refuse collections and so on. This is the debate we need to have, but no politician seems up for it. 

I agree. And scrapping expensive vanity projects like HS2 will help also (we need more west-east railways in this country, not south-north ones).

I have another, more radical proposal. Brexit allows us to do away with VAT - a regressive tax imposed when we joined the old EEC back in 1973. VAT is a most iniquitous tax, it hits the poorest hardest, adds to small business' burdens and costs a fortune to administer. I would scrap it altogether and raise income tax proportionally. The time and money HMRC saved could then be used to go after tax dodgers and duty defrauders.

Not disagreeing with the logic HH,  all the shortfalls you've listed in NHS, police, roads etc truly do need attention.  However this leaked manifesto is the same old self defeating path of left wing socialism.  I note its pandering to the real masters of this so called labour party by strengthen trade union rights,  increased unionisation in the workforce & repealing the Trade Union Act.  Then nationalisation of rail, power mail etc. is taking us back to the disaster that was the 1970's.    I lived that time & there is no way I will want to inflict that on anyone,  the whole decade was endless strikes instigated by the extreme left socialist (marxist) unions,  power cuts, 3 day weeks, rotting rubbish,  need I go on.  Only this delusionary Corbyn & the group around him can believe this is a way to government.  I actually feel sorry for the centre left,  who do they vote for ??

Mike-B posted:

  I note its pandering to the real masters of this so called labour party by strengthen trade union rights,  increased unionisation in the workforce & repealing the Trade Union Act.  Then nationalisation of rail, power mail etc. is taking us back to the disaster that was the 1970's.    I lived that time & there is no way I will want to inflict that on anyone,  the whole decade was endless strikes instigated by the extreme left socialist (marxist) unions,  power cuts, 3 day weeks, rotting rubbish,  need I go on. 

Mike I lived through the 1970s as well. And nobody wants the fraught industrial relations of that era to return. But the pendulum has swung too far the other way. And in any case, the UK economy has swung away from the industrial base of the 1970s so circumstances are very different today.

You say that Labour's true masters are the trade unions. But even if that were true, the unions yield one gazillionth of the power (and are far less malign) than the supranational corporations who are the Tories' masters.

And privatisation of the rail, mail, utilities has worked so well, hasn't it? I mean, we are all paying far less than we used to, and nobody is getting ripped off, are they? Railways and utilities are not fungible, are they? They are all, in a way, natural monopolies. Better a monopoly be in the hands of the state than those of a grasping multinational, do you not think?

The ironic thing is that many of our railways are in the hands of state railways of other countries (DB, SNCF, etc) - our overpriced tickets are being used to subsidise travel for the French and Germans. No-one begrudges our Continental friends fairly-priced rail travel, but why should we be paying for it? We've all been conned!

I'm a libertarian at heart but much of our economy is broken and dysfunctional, thanks to 40 years of the imposition of neoliberal dogma. Time for some market intervention to put things right.

I agree the policies look good. Shame I can't bring myself to vote for a party with a leadership like Corbyn/Abbot.

It's quite easy to come up with policies that they know they will never have to implement ...

It's good, though, to see an attractive alternative. All the Tories seem to be offering is more of the same. It's such a shame that this election will be dominated by Brexit, when it's the economy and public services that really matter. Good schools, decent healthcare, a good train service and police on the beat. The Tories seem happy to let them get inexorably worse, and it's ultimately us that will suffer. 

One part of the Labour policy I do disagree with is aiming increased tax at the very wealthy. We all need to pay more. We all need - to use a horrible management speak phrase - some skin in the game. All the Tories achieve by focusing on increased thresholds is letting people think that they don't have to contribute and others will provide. 

Dozey posted:

I agree the policies look good. Shame I can't bring myself to vote for a party with a leadership like Corbyn/Abbot.

The problem with that attitude is there is no alternative ... or more there is only one alternative ... MAY supported by Johnson, Davis, Fox and Hammond.

The whole leak stinks to me ... unless someone did it "officially" to try to win support for Corbyn (which I doubt) ... then someone (or a group) in the Labour party really would rather a Tory landslide than any sniff of a Labour victory or to reduce Tory power.  This isn't just campaigning while not mentioning Corbyn, this is a deliberate attempt to undermine the party as a whole.

Hungryhalibut posted:

It's good, though, to see an attractive alternative. All the Tories seem to be offering is more of the same.It's such a shame that this election will be dominated by Brexit, when it's the economy and public services that really matter. Good schools, decent healthcare, a good train service and police on the beat. The Tories seem happy to let them get inexorably worse, and it's ultimately us that will suffer. 

One part of the Labour policy I do disagree with is aiming increased tax at the very wealthy. We all need to pay more. We all need - to use a horrible management speak phrase - some skin in the game. All the Tories achieve by focusing on increased thresholds is letting people think that they don't have to contribute and others will provide. 

Brexit is the REASON we are having this election. Nothing else matters at present. If anything else was important, TM wouldn't have called the election. And if anybody other than Corbyn had been leader of the Opposition, she wouldn't have dared to call this election.

Increase the personal allowance a bit, freeze the higher rate threshold (ideally it should come down a little bit, but that's politically unacceptable).  Scrap HS2, use that money to improve East - West transport links in the Midlands and build the Oxford - Cambridge link sooner and some limited investment in schools.  That's all the funds will stretch to, as we have to continue to reduce the deficit or we won't be able to invest in anything at all in a few years time.

Accept Keynsian economics: Use the economy to reduce the deficit so that we have money to invest later (currently the deficit is too high to invest properly, doing so won't produce any returns, just much more debt, albeit deferred).  N.B. when the economy is in surplus then we should invest in the economy and do so heavily, rather than giving away tax cuts.

Does that make me a capitalist or socialist?

Hopefully neither.  I despise the partisan nature of the current political structure and the way it forces MPs to represent their party rather than representing their constituents to the best of their ability (as they are actually required to do by law).

Huge posted:

 

Hopefully neither.  I despise the partisan nature of the current political structure and the way it forces MPs to represent their party rather than representing their constituents to the best of their ability (as they are actually required to do by law).

+1 or perhaps appropriately +650 agreement.

Mike-B posted:

Not disagreeing with the logic HH,  all the shortfalls you've listed in NHS, police, roads etc truly do need attention.  However this leaked manifesto is the same old self defeating path of left wing socialism.  I note its pandering to the real masters of this so called labour party by strengthen trade union rights,  increased unionisation in the workforce & repealing the Trade Union Act.  Then nationalisation of rail, power mail etc. is taking us back to the disaster that was the 1970's.    I lived that time & there is no way I will want to inflict that on anyone,  the whole decade was endless strikes instigated by the extreme left socialist (marxist) unions,  power cuts, 3 day weeks, rotting rubbish,  need I go on.  Only this delusionary Corbyn & the group around him can believe this is a way to government.  I actually feel sorry for the centre left,  who do they vote for ??

Hi Mike

Actually much of what has appeared in the leak would have been regarded as mildly left of centre in the 1960s and of course in the period before Thatcher's right wing free market approach the majority Conservatives would have subscribed to most of these policies as being part of the post WW2 consensus. It's the move to right-wing neoliberalism that makes them look more radical than they really are. There's no doubt that the marketisation of essential utilities has been a complete disaster for consumers - for example, this has been particularly clear over the last few days following the Tories stealing of Labour's energy price policy from 2015. It's evident from the discussion that there is no way that the energy market can act in favour of consumers. The policies would look significantly more socialist if they included nationalising the banking system.

I too lived through the seventies and I think that one of the key problems was that the UK economy was in the doldrums and had never picked up after the trauma of WW2 - the irony is that much of the subsequent recovery was a combination of the effect of being in the EU and the benefits of North Sea oil. The real failing of our politicians in the period was to fail to invest oil money in developing the economy to support productive sectors rather than fuelling consumption, particularly in the form of house prices. Whatever your view of union influence, there is a clear link between the erosion of employment rights and the growth of financial inequality and the dismemberment of the unions.

Clive

Where will the money come from to implement a seemingly endless wish list of 1970s policies? Do we really think that increasing taxation for companies will cover it all and not have an impact?  Yes it would be nice to have those huge companies working the system paying their fair share but increasing tax for all just means less investment, higher prices or fewer jobs.  The Corbyn party seems to believe that there are no financial restraints in government and it can promise whatever it likes and it's being egged on by hard core union bosses who would be better advised to stick to running their unions.

Privatised companies may not be perfect but at least we can choose not to use them and therefore fund them. Half the companies mentioned were crap when they were in public ownership, stupidly expensive to run, constantly on strike and bloated beyond belief.  

When was the last time a Labour government was elected on a far left wing manifesto?  Playing Citizen Smith and indulging the instincts we had as teenagers in the 70s and 80s is fun but not when it means we get slaughtered in the election and allow the Tories a free run for ten years.  Have we forgotten the lessons Michael Foot taught us?  Just because you believe something very strongly doesn't mean it's right or popular. We are all doomed

Many different sides to the arguments but specifically on rail I never thought the franchising model was fit for purpose - it's an administrative nightmare - I would like to have seen a model of private investment in the previous sector model with open access like the German model.   But since franchising there has been massive replenishment/updating of rolling stock, the network carries double the number of passengers and freight - could the old BR have achieved that?  I doubt it.  Interestingly Germany are increasingly franchising their services http://www.nationalexpressgrou...erman-rail-services/ .  On fares pre-franchising increases were mostly above inflation year on year with little service improvement but without the real bargains that can be had by pre-early booking that can now be had.

As ever - beware the mantra of the Left "we have the moral and intellectual high ground and if you disagree with us you're a selfish Tory racist".   

dayjay posted:

Privatised companies may not be perfect but at least we can choose not to use them and therefore fund them. Half the companies mentioned were crap when they were in public ownership, stupidly expensive to run, constantly on strike and bloated beyond belief.  

The companies in question (energy and especially the rail) are crap now they are in private ownership though.  Even more expensive to run because they are run for the benefit of shareholders not the customer.  The rail is not a choice ... if you want to travel from home to don't have a choice (if you want to use rail). Rail is also massively subsidised and investment comes primarily from the public purse.

Properly managed, private monopolies will always be more expensive because they are required to make a profit.

When was the last time a Labour government was elected on a far left wing manifesto?  Playing Citizen Smith and indulging the instincts we had as teenagers in the 70s and 80s is fun but not when it means we get slaughtered in the election and allow the Tories a free run for ten years.  Have we forgotten the lessons Michael Foot taught us?  Just because you believe something very strongly doesn't mean it's right or popular. We are all doomed

This isn't "far left". 

dayjay posted:

Where will the money come from to implement a seemingly endless wish list of 1970s policies? Do we really think that increasing taxation for companies will cover it all and not have an impact? 

No, probably not, the implication is valid.

But doesn't it seem reasonable that the UK should have a corporation tax rate roughly in line with other leading European countries? It certainly sounds reasonable to me.

Maybe I'm missing something, but as far as I'm aware that's all that the proposed 26% is. Not any kind of 'socialist utopia pipe dream' or whatever. The European average is just over 26%, when weighted for GDP. And as regions go, that's low.

https://taxfoundation.org/corp...s-around-world-2016/

"This isn't "far left"" Not for 1973, no, but for 2017 it is.  The world has moved on, ironically, without Momentuum it would seem.  Public held companies will always be more expensive, because they are run for the employees and they don't need to worry about covering their costs.  That's about as valid as the statement re private companies.  Can you imagine the government running Tesco?  We'd all starve to death because they would either only be open between 9am and 5pm mid-week, on strike or too expensive to shop at.  I spent decades working in public sector companies, including the NHS, and they are wasteful in the extreme, full of red tape and politics and at the mercy of the unions.  

dayjay posted:

 I spent decades working in public sector companies, including the NHS, and they are wasteful in the extreme, full of red tape and politics and at the mercy of the unions.  

Exactly.... I would describe it as being unprofessional,

If these organisations were spending their own monies it would be somewhat different. 

dayjay posted:

"This isn't "far left"" Not for 1973, no, but for 2017 it is.  The world has moved on, ironically, without Momentuum it would seem.  Public held companies will always be more expensive, because they are run for the employees and they don't need to worry about covering their costs.  That's about as valid as the statement re private companies.  Can you imagine the government running Tesco?  We'd all starve to death because they would either only be open between 9am and 5pm mid-week, on strike or too expensive to shop at.  I spent decades working in public sector companies, including the NHS, and they are wasteful in the extreme, full of red tape and politics and at the mercy of the unions.  

Its only far left because the alternative is the conservatives who wish to return to 1870s with Grammar Schools and Fox Hunting.  Opinion polls suggest a high support for nationalising rail services and the Royal Mail by the way.

Private companies are fine where there is competition ... but rail and to a lesser extent energy supply companies are not true competitive companies, more akin to monopolies.

Public sector tend to be wasteful as they are more worried about customers (the public) than shareholders.  They are not at the mercy of unions any more than private companies are.  But when the employees are squeezed as is inevitable when governments want to take the axe to services they will fight back.  (Most) teachers, doctors, nurses, etc don't want to strike, but they want to be able to offer what they feel is best for those under their care; while the government are intent on cutting back and then cutting back more.

The post office spent more time on strike in the past than it did in work and it was nothing to do with being squeezed, they were a prime example of a heavily unionised company unwilling to accept any form of change or drive to improve performance.   Train companies were just as bad at one point.  Public sector companies fail because they become too big and are impossible to manage well and you end up with top down management clashing with a unionised workforce.  The NHS is a good example, loyal, committed workers but operating a service that is just not sustainable in modern society used by people who abuse it for minor issues and subject to constant political upheaval and reorganisations.  It will only change for the better if we change it, and hiding our head in the sand and believing stupid pledges to pump money into it without changing it will only hasten its demise.  We are desperately in need of a Labour government that can fight the Tories with sensible modern day policies and sadly this left of centre manifesto and cabal isn't it.

dayjay posted:

Train companies were just as bad at one point.  

Like 2016 if you're talking Southern Rail!  

(I deleted the bit about Royal Mail cause I don't really think Royal Mail is of importance these days.)

Public sector companies fail because they become too big and are impossible to manage well and you end up with top down management clashing with a unionised workforce.  

The clashes are not because of being public sector though ... they are because they become too big.  You could (for example) keep the smaller franchises running the services, only have them as publicly owned companies - you know like East Coast was run very successfully and at a profit.

The NHS is a good example, loyal, committed workers but operating a service that is just not sustainable in modern society used by people who abuse it for minor issues and subject to constant political upheaval and reorganisations.

But that isn't a argument for not having a NHS ... thats an argument that says the funding is either insufficient (not enough GPs and practice nurses) or spent the wrong place.

 It will only change for the better if we change it, and hiding our head in the sand and believing stupid pledges to pump money into it without changing it will only hasten its demise.  We are desperately in need of a Labour government that can fight the Tories with sensible modern day policies and sadly this left of centre manifesto and cabal isn't it.

You don't have any alternative though.  Its vote Labour in a month's time (or in some places Lib Dem) or you get May.

I'm not saying that I 100% support all the policies in the manifesto, nor that the leader of the Labour party is the best person to lead.  But in this case it IS a question which has a black or white answer.  If you can't support the Labour policies / manifesto, then you are by default supporting the Conservatives.  There isn't the luxury of debating who would be a better leader.

(Though perhaps what we actually need is a complete collapse of civilisation and then a new system built up again)

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.  Governments above all else have to at least be competent.  An incompetent government with good policies is quite possible worse than a competent government with bad policies.  Having a labour government over a bankrupt country does not help those who need a labour government or the NHS and you can't keep announcing idea after idea and claim that they will all be paid for from the same taxation without considering the impact of that taxation and without proving your numbers add up.  This leader, and his inner circle, appear to be grossly incompetent and out of touch with everyone, including his own MPs, with the exception of the unions and Momentum.  You can't just put policies in your manifesto for your inner circle and the fanatics around you, you already have their votes, and you can't ignore major issues, such as Brexit and immigration which ever side of the argument you are on, and hope that no one will notice.  I fear a Corbyn government would be a disaster for this country and even more so for the Labour Party.  

"But that isn't a argument for not having a NHS ... thats an argument that says the funding is either insufficient (not enough GPs and practice nurses) or spent the wrong place.

". Absolutely, I believe in an NHS completely, my wife still works in it as do many of my friends and former colleagues but just pumping in more money isn't the answer. It needs a fundamental change so that it is fit for purpose and in line with what the country needs and can afford.

dayjay posted:

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.  Governments above all else have to at least be competent.  An incompetent government with good policies is quite possible worse than a competent government with bad policies.  Having a labour government over a bankrupt country does not help those who need a labour government or the NHS and you can't keep announcing idea after idea and claim that they will all be paid for from the same taxation without considering the impact of that taxation and without proving your numbers add up.  This leader, and his inner circle, appear to be grossly incompetent and out of touch with everyone, including his own MPs, with the exception of the unions and Momentum.  You can't just put policies in your manifesto for your inner circle and the fanatics around you, you already have their votes, and you can't ignore major issues, such as Brexit and immigration which ever side of the argument you are on, and hope that no one will notice.  I fear a Corbyn government would be a disaster for this country and even more so for the Labour Party.  

The only competency in the May government is being able to say "Strong and Stable" 650 times a day.

The party leading the country to bankruptcy is the Conservatives.

The IFS have suggested the Labour party figures do add up - with the caveat that not everything had been announced.  Yes there is some borrowing, but borrowing to invest is a GOOD thing!

Many of the Labour MPs have their own agenda thats true.  Some of Corbyn's shadow cabinet are less than ideal thats true.  If people listened to Corbyn much more than relying on what others say (not directing this to you more generally) I think they might actually find that he's more reasonable and competent than he is portrayed.  But thats not what people want is it ... they want the twitter no more than 144 character reply ... even if the reply to a question doesn't actually answer the question.

The policies in the manifesto are for the whole country ... its May who's policies are for the few and her inner circle.  Fox hunting and Grammar schools!!  Its not like the last 30 years have been a success at creating a society which is good for everyone ... yet everyone wants to stick with the same old policies.

dayjay posted:

It needs a fundamental change so that it is fit for purpose and in line with what the country needs and can afford.

No. It either needs a change so its fit for purpose in line with what the country needs; or it will be cut down in size to what the country can afford.  Either you say what it needs to be and fund it, or you say what can be afforded.  If you are cutting it down to what the country can afford how does that work?  What services are you going to cut out?  No cancer treatment for the over 75s?  Perhaps stop all fertility treatment?  

The main problem in the NHS though is that no one can decide exactly how it should be run.  Should it be run on a local level and decisions made locally.  Or should there be more national decisions.  If its run locally we get the "post code lottery" effect; if its national then that adds to bureaucracy.

Actually no, the main problem for the NHS (and other public sector essentials like law and order / the prison service) is that the Doctors (legal "experts) aren't in charge.  But neither are politicians in charge.  The problem is that so much policy is directed by the headlines.  

Oh dear. If this is true, Little Timmy Farron may have just signed the Lib Fems' electoral death warrant:

https://www.theguardian.com/po...more-syrian-refugees

Don Atkinson posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

It's good, though, to see an attractive alternative. All the Tories seem to be offering is more of the same.It's such a shame that this election will be dominated by Brexit, when it's the economy and public services that really matter. Good schools, decent healthcare, a good train service and police on the beat. The Tories seem happy to let them get inexorably worse, and it's ultimately us that will suffer. 

Brexit is the REASON we are having this election. Nothing else matters at present. If anything else was important, TM wouldn't have called the election. And if anybody other than Corbyn had been leader of the Opposition, she wouldn't have dared to call this election.

Yes and No Don.

Brexit is the reason we are having this election because May knows she has strong support for Brexit and can hoover up the UKIP votes into Tory votes.  But HH is right that its the economy and public services which really matter.  Brexit is just an excuse to squeeze the economy and public services, and immigration is a handy hook to hang all the problems on - and hook which the Tories can say was caused by Labour in the 90s, and is the cause of over stretched NHS - and which Labour have no good response to.  Labour's only chance (and its a slim chance though apparently Ladbrooks lowered the odds from 200/1 to 50/1 of a labour win) is to concentrate not on Brexit (IMO).

And if the PLP hadn't started their coup just when Labour were on the up she wouldn't have dared call the election either. Though on the calling of an election: I'm between a rock and a hard place as I argued at the time she should be required to call an election...