Labour Party Conference

Jonners posted:

MDS posted:

I can't say that Corbyn or most of his front-bench carry much credibility for me, nor do most of the policy announcements they have made.  That said, I do believe that Corbyn is a man of principle and behaves with good manners. He comes across as authentic so I can see why he is popular, not that I'm suggesting that those qualities are sufficient to make a competent prime minister.

That said, I think the huge advantage that Corbyn and Labour have at the moment is the poverty of the Conservative party. In a nutshell, most people are fed up with ten years of austerity in which they've seen the rich getting richer, their incomes squeezed and public services deteriorating; and the Conservatives are offering no new ideas. Plus, they are openly fighting among themselves and are making a complete horlicks of Brexit, thus eroding their reputation for 'competence'.  Is it any wonder that many people are attracted to Labour's 'new ideas'?

 Rather as we've seen across the Atlantic, when large numbers of people get fed-up with years of 'more-of-the-same' they can be attracted to something/someone who offers a different approach. 

I don't know if things are that bad in the UK, well according to statistics anyway. Wage growth is the highest in two and a half years and unemployment is sub 4.5%, according to the FT.

I hear that the price of rose tinted spectacles is good too. Anyone in the public sector, and many in the private sector will know that real wages are way behind what they were in 2008, after years of pay cuts, or minimal rises at best. Unemployment may be low, but underemployment is rife and zero hours contracts far too common. 

As a moderate Labour member I’m not totally happy with everything but wholeheartedly support better public services, reductions in inequality and an emphasis on workers as stakeholders rather than drones. Labour offers a real vision of a better future, while the Tories offer nothing but grinding austerity and a country where the rich get inexorably richer while more and more are pushed into poverty. 

hungryhalibut posted:

As a moderate Labour member I’m not totally happy with everything but wholeheartedly support better public services, reductions in inequality and an emphasis on workers as stakeholders rather than drones. Labour offers a real vision of a better future, while the Tories offer nothing but grinding austerity and a country where the rich get inexorably richer while more and more are pushed into poverty. 

I don't think most people would disagree with you as part of a set of ideals. And frankly it's easy peasy for any party, particulary if in opposition, to 'offer a real vision of a better future', but that's all it is, a vision. To paraphrase Harrison Ford, "Jeremy, you can say all this shit, but you can't action it..." And once in power, any former opposition party will simply blame the previous Government for ballsing it up for them, meaning they won't be able to deliver on their vision after all. It's always someone else's fault by then.

As ever, it comes down to one thing. Ideals cost money and lots of it. Unfortunately no-one seems to be able to satisfactorily answer the question of how to pay for their ideals and be able to show their working. All this week I've seen journos pressing Labour representatives on how they will pay for their visions and they blatantly deflect it, every time. Usually starting with: 'Look, as I said earlier...' I don't blame them, they haven't got an answer. What I do object to is this 'power for the people' nonsense such as the public ownership of employer shares. As per my above post, this already exists in the form of Sharesave. Labour actually seems to be saying we're going to tax every company 10% of it's capital value, give each employee up to £500 and keep the rest as a tax take. Well a) That's never going to happen b) it's hardly a long term taxation strategy is it? and c) £500?? The employees won't give a monkeys.

As to paying for stuff long term, sure there are soundbytes about getting large firms to pay their dues and various forms of taxing the middle classes even more too. However, with a growing wider population and a shrinking tax paying one, the sums are tricky. For instance I saw some interesting figures yesterday showing that by 2041, 25% of the population will be receiving state pension (despite rising State NRD), which is not far off the percentage of workers paying meaningful levels of NI. State pension by then will be about £15K p.a. So that's rather a chunk of a tax payers income just going to pay someone else's pension! And of course that's just the state pension, never mind all the other things NI is supposedly covering. Employer NI charges are already quite steep at near 14% and I think they may resist even higher levels of NI !

I do feel that politics is getting in the way of government more than ever. I fear a 5 year economic policy is unlikely to ever succeed in turning a country around in the long term but while party politics determine how a country and its economy and tax take is run, we'll forever be looking for a new and better way forward, no matter who's running the show.

hungryhalibut posted:

Company share ownership seems to be a very good thing, and one adopted more widely in other countries. The current proposal needs more thought, both to not be simply a way of taxing the companies, and to ensure that companies don’t simply recoup the £500s by cutting wages or pensions. 

Let’s see what the Tories come up with next week before being too critical of Labour. I suspect the answer will be more of the same, a country where inequality increases further while our great public services fall apart. 

I agree that employee share ownership schemes are a very good idea, I used to belong to such a scheme, but under Labour’s idea the employees will not really own the shares, they will not be able to sell them and as far as I can see will not benefit from any increase in share price.

And frankly it's easy peasy for any party, particulary if in opposition, to 'offer a real vision of a better future', but that's all it is, a vision. To paraphrase Harrison Ford, "Jeremy, you can say all this shit, but you can't action it..." And once in power, any former opposition party will simply blame the previous Government for ballsing it up for them, meaning they won't be able to deliver on their vision after all. It's always someone else's fault by then.

It would be interesting if political parties were subject to the advertising standards legislation.  If they can't deliver what they promised then they should be prosecuted. But then, politicians rarely get prosecuted/punished for their lies, incompetence or political behaviour.  And I don't count 'not being elected again' as punishment.

JamieWednesday posted:

Well the Jewish community in the UK certainly feel that The Labour Party has been/is anti Semitic.

Of course they wouldn't would they that's what called being defensive. There is absolutely no difference between South Africa under Pik Botha and Israel today none but for some reason 'Free Nelson Mandela' & 'Free South Africa' became a world cry but in the case of Israel the world has turned it's back.

I think Jeremy Corbyn is a man of integrity and conscience and instead of doing what politicians usually do deny & ignore he has in his leaders speech addressed the issue which is probably why he got only warm applause.

His speech gave me hope that finally a politician will stand be his beliefs and I congratulate him .

His beliefs in serial adultery?

Bob the Builder posted:

I think Jeremy Corbyn is a man of integrity and conscience and instead of doing what politicians usually do deny & ignore he has in his leaders speech addressed the issue which is probably why he got only warm applause.

His speech gave me hope that finally a politician will stand be his beliefs and I congratulate him .

His speech the same time last year also gave people hope until he subsequently had to back-peddle on tuition fees.

Mr.Corbyn may well be a man of integrity but if he's going to condemn things like zero-hour working contracts he really ought to ensure his own conference doesn't use contractors employing workers on them.

Like the anti-Semitism row which has blighted the Party throughout the summer he really needs to get a grip and sort it out. Integrity is one thing, credibility another.

If one would go on holiday abroad, say for two weeks, would you trust Jeremy Corbyn to feed your two cats and  walk your dog, water the plants and generally to ensure your house is safe ?

Romi posted:

If one would go on holiday abroad, say for two weeks, would you trust Jeremy Corbyn to feed your two cats and  walk your dog, water the plants and generally to ensure your house is safe ?

Of course, so long as he made me some jam while I was away. 

JamieWednesday posted:

His beliefs in serial adultery?

What’s that got to do with it? Boris shags everything that moves and people pat him on the back. I tend to agree with you on the share ownership thing though, as there are better way. If directors can be paid millions in shares despite failing to meet their targets it seems a few for the workers can’t be too much of an ask. 

I used to be a die hard Tory but am now on the fence. I have a substantial shares portfolio that I manage myself and other accounts that I use a broker to manage. I suppose I'm quite wealthy but had to work hard long hours, reaping the benefits in my retirement now. However, I'll act as devil's advocate. Taking the home energy sector as an example that all UK residents have to use, specifically gas, electricity and water. Why are a number owned by non UK companies, some supported by their government? I know it smacks of communism but as these assets are basic necessities why shouldn't some of the profits and certainly the dividends be put in the countries coffers rather than in shareholders pockets? Of course the utilities would have to be run as individual entities with no interference from government and as an efficient business as if it were private. It's not rocket science. I would be negatively financially affected if this came to pass though. Rich 

Rich 1 posted:

I used to be a die hard Tory but am now on the fence. I have a substantial shares portfolio that I manage myself and other accounts that I use a broker to manage. I suppose I'm quite wealthy but had to work hard long hours, reaping the benefits in my retirement now. However, I'll act as devil's advocate. Taking the home energy sector as an example that all UK residents have to use, specifically gas, electricity and water. Why are a number owned by non UK companies, some supported by their government? I know it smacks of communism but as these assets are basic necessities why shouldn't some of the profits and certainly the dividends be put in the countries coffers rather than in shareholders pockets? Of course the utilities would have to be run as individual entities with no interference from government and as an efficient business as if it were private. It's not rocket science. I would be negatively financially affected if this came to pass though. Rich 

I think it's a case of shutting the door after the horse has bolted. It's not just our utilities which are in the hands of the private sector, so are our airports, power stations and don't get me started on my pet hate HS2 which I understand could be run and operated by Chinese companies when it's finally built because we've embarked on a vanity project we can't afford. Anyway, danger of going off topic but I get your gist and I agree.

My neighbour is a Bexit supporting Tory who voted UKIP previously. I’m a yogurt spinning Guardian reading Labour member and we often discuss these matters while standing outside in our gardens. While we strongly disagree on some things we agree on probably 95% of things - decent services funded by fairly distributed taxes, the need for decent jobs and housing, support for those genuinely in need, good environmental standards and so on. It seems that politics can get in the way and sow needless divisions. Of course without politics the country wouldn’t run, but you get my drift. 

It will be interesting to see what the Tories come up with next week. The next couple of months will be really interesting. 

The Tories will probably come up with nothing different.

I suspect they’ll play up to the non radical tag and are busy concentrating on Brexit, I see the budget has been brought toward to the end of October too.

As to Boris, he is another politician of proven dubious morality and I wouldn’t mind at all if he was asked to retire ASAP. Perhaps he and Jeremy could start a club?

JamieWednesday posted:

The Tories will probably come up with nothing different.

I suspect they’ll play up to the non radical tag and are busy concentrating on Brexit, I see the budget has been brought toward to the end of October too.

As to Boris, he is another politician of proven dubious morality and I wouldn’t mind at all if he was asked to retire ASAP. Perhaps he and Jeremy could start a club?

And they will probably continue to blame the Labour party for what they inherited, and the financial crash.  Trouble is, more and more people are getting fed up listening to this.  Also the tone of Conservative party policies continue to seem gloomy and aimed at their traditional voter base i.e. older people.  Meanwhile, Labour is promoting hopeful, positive policies and aiming them at the young for whom the mantra 'Labour can't be trusted with the economy' has no relevance.     

I find it very perplexing that the Conservative party, which is full of very well educated and intelligent people, seemingly can't see the need to change their appeal and to try to capture the votes of the young.  

Because the Tories aren’t cool and probably never will be, perhaps one if the reasons Ruthy would be considered. At least now that Alan B’stard is no longer with us.

Ah, Alan B'stard. Now there's a Tory MP who could complete with BJ in the shagging stakes! 

MDS posted:

JamieWednesday posted:

The Tories will probably come up with nothing different.

I suspect they’ll play up to the non radical tag and are busy concentrating on Brexit, I see the budget has been brought toward to the end of October too.

As to Boris, he is another politician of proven dubious morality and I wouldn’t mind at all if he was asked to retire ASAP. Perhaps he and Jeremy could start a club?

And they will probably continue to blame the Labour party for what they inherited, and the financial crash.  Trouble is, more and more people are getting fed up listening to this.  Also the tone of Conservative party policies continue to seem gloomy and aimed at their traditional voter base i.e. older people.  Meanwhile, Labour is promoting hopeful, positive policies and aiming them at the young for whom the mantra 'Labour can't be trusted with the economy' has no relevance.     

I find it very perplexing that the Conservative party, which is full of very well educated and intelligent people, seemingly can't see the need to change their appeal and to try to capture the votes of the young.  

Given the performance of the Tories in the last General Election, the subsequent alienation of older voters through a series of ill-conceived taxes in the last manifesto, the unpopularity of the Bedroom Tax with the poor and a complete hash of Brexit you'd think it couldn't be easier for Labour. Except instead of capitalising on the Tories's misfortunes, they've been busy in-fighting. A lost opportunity?

Yes. I agree, Jonners.  At the last election, the Tories' 'dementia tax' was a gift to Labour, and in my view TM lost a lot of credibility when she got very flustered at a press conference shrieking that "...there's no change!" when mid-campaign the policy clearly was changed.   

The so called 'dementia tax' fiasco was another example of the media spreading misinformation. As far as I recall, anybody with property or savings would be better off under the Tories proposals. But, it wasn’t popular, so it had to be dropped

Even the right-wing Press slaughtered it, factcat. I mentioned it not because there isn't a massive problem to fix there, there is, but as an example of the Conservatives' incompetence in the last election campaign. They can't put the blame for that on the media.  

fatcat posted:

The so called 'dementia tax' fiasco was another example of the media spreading misinformation. As far as I recall, anybody with property or savings would be better off under the Tories proposals. But, it wasn’t popular, so it had to be dropped

 

It was a 2-faceted policy where the positive (raising the threshold for savings and assets before giving them up for care costs more than quadrupled to £100k) was overshadowed by deciding to apply it for those receiving care at home to level the playing field. Jeremy Corbyn coined the term "Dementia Tax" and the press had a field day with it.

Jonners posted:

fatcat posted:

The so called 'dementia tax' fiasco was another example of the media spreading misinformation. As far as I recall, anybody with property or savings would be better off under the Tories proposals. But, it wasn’t popular, so it had to be dropped

 

It was a 2-faceted policy where the positive (raising the threshold for savings and assets before giving them up for care costs more than quadrupled to £100k) was overshadowed by deciding to apply it for those receiving care at home to level the playing field. Jeremy Corbyn coined the term "Dementia Tax" and the press had a field day with it.

And as I recall, the first exposure of the proposal had no upper ceiling, which the Conservatives, under pressure from the Press, then "clarified" by saying there would be one, which TM claimed was not a change.   But, as I suggested earlier, I mentioned this as an example of political incompetence, not to critique what is a very serious issue that successive governments have ducked.  

I think both parties are defnitely warped and maybe a new party needs to be created preferably of representatives of various parts of our society who are inherently not politicians.  Wipe away all previous political acts and start afresh with practical ideas beneficial to the good of mankind in UK.  It is important that the new members do not havy any conflicts of interests which will adversly affect in their duties.

Romi posted:

I think both parties are defnitely warped and maybe a new party needs to be created preferably of representatives of various parts of our society who are inherently not politicians.  Wipe away all previous political acts and start afresh with practical ideas beneficial to the good of mankind in UK.  It is important that the new members do not havy any conflicts of interests which will adversly affect in their duties.

As we did in 1981?

Normally if the Gang of Four make an apearance it's in the Music Room