The Labour Thread

[Aber gas]

Corbyn's interview with Marr was superb.

"Look at me, I've got youth on my side"

Did you see Fallon. Dear god....

 

[Techno Natch]

Yeah he's pretty chilled at the moment, and it's good now as he can actually get on with sharing his ideas without constant questions over his leadership. That's why despite losing it's actually been a win for left leaning Labour members.

Found myself agreeing with Osborne to much.

 

[Aber gas]

Did you see Fallon. Dear god....

https://twitter.com/chunkymark/status/873823523147534336

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

I love Corbs ( he's the absolute boy btw) but McDonnell has to be the most astute, clever and effective politician in the U.K right now. A powerhouse who understands the economy and the flow of capital better than anyone.
He's also a dreamboat.

McDonnell and Abbott are kind of political opposites. Abbott is very sound in terms of her politics, but not the most effective operator. McDonnell is capable and effective, but I have lingering doubts about his politics.

I get the impression - backed up in this very good interview with Diane Abbott that John McDonnell favoured a stronger line against immigration in a bid to win over UKIP supporters, and that Abbott was crucial in blocking this.

It's now clear that Abbott got this right - Labour can win back UKIP supporters without being UKIP-lite. I hope she's better soon as someone with her credentials on civil liberties and anti-racism is necessary to maintain the coalition that delivered Labour Thursday's result.

 

[Aber gas]

McDonnell and Abbott are kind of political opposites. Abbott is very sound in terms of her politics, but not the most effective operator. McDonnell is capable and effective, but I have lingering doubts about his politics.

I get the impression - backed up in this very good interview with Diane Abbott that John McDonnell favoured a stronger line against immigration in a bid to win over UKIP supporters, and that Abbott was crucial in blocking this.

It's now clear that Abbott got this right - Labour can win back UKIP supporters without being UKIP-lite. I hope she's better soon as someone with her credentials on civil liberties and anti-racism is necessary to maintain the coalition that delivered Labour Thursday's result.

He's still a dreamboat tho.

 

[.V.]

Corbyn's interview with Marr was superb.

"Look at me, I've got youth on my side"

He really has figured out how to best engage and charm the media.

Marr: "You're looking chipper."

Corbyn: "It's a nice sunny morning."

 

[.V.]

He's still a dreamboat tho.

Important question; Dreamboat McDreamboat or Isabel Oakeshott?

 

[Stringy]

So I voted Labour as I was wooed by Corbyn (and alienated by the Tories while LD wasn't a look in). But I'm not 100% sold on the economics of this thing.

Can someone please convince me it adds up and Labour weren't going to bankrupt the country again? I'm all for investment in welfare but at some point it needs to be paid for.

I don't think that either party being elected is likely to lead to bankruptcy.

Labour would argue that taxation is unfairly weighted in favour of growth for business. They want greater taxation as they believe this would maximise tax revenues which could be spent on other, more worthwhile things - such as improving people's lives.

The Conservatives would argue that higher taxation leads to stagnation in growth and that to maximise tax revenues you must lower taxes, so businesses can grow. Businesses, then, as a result of growth pay more in revenue, which could then be spent on other, more worthwhile things - such as improving people's lives.

Each party disagrees on what the revenue maximising point is, which is why we go around in circles in the economic debate.

My view - both ways can work, but you need to make your own mind up on which way you think is better for the majority of people.

Edit: Obviously this isn't perfect

 

[Abertawe]

And multinationals believe that the best way is to have the Tories in their pocket, get them to lower taxes whilst at the same time streamline their profits out of the tax system altogether so they pay next to fuck all anyway.

 

[TheMinsterman]

So I voted Labour as I was wooed by Corbyn (and alienated by the Tories while LD wasn't a look in). But I'm not 100% sold on the economics of this thing.

Can someone please convince me it adds up and Labour weren't going to bankrupt the country again? I'm all for investment in welfare but at some point it needs to be paid for.

Because much of their plans was to invest in sectors that would eventually pay back the initial investment and then provide an ongoing profit, renationalising the railways etc would, in time, bring a significant amount of extra revenue into the coffers rather than into private companies bank accounts.

The logic behind less obvious sources of return was that for example if you invest in a better NHS you keep people healthier and alive longer to pay more taxes, if you invest properly in welfare you lower the pressure on people who find themselves out of work and reduce potential mental health problems due to financial worries that would either hinder their job search or worse take them out of the job market and into disability.

Essentially all Labours policies were about investing, what the Tories ("magic money tree") and the press did was convince everybody it was just tossing money away to give people free stuff. Actually it was investing in many sectors which would eventually have a net positive and begin to provide extra revenue streams directly or improve people's lives and create more motivated workforces to bring in more revenue indirectly.

I think free tuition is perhaps wrong personally, lower it because something like 45% will never be repaid but a modest sum as an investment in a student with far better systems for considering candidates because too many people go to uni for the sake of it. Undergraduate degrees are becoming almost entirely worthless because over oversaturation, imo free tuition would only increase that. I don't think modest fees like 2-4K a year as an investment in training for your future career is bad, a big problem is again imo too many people go who don't really care for the subject or a career through it, and I base that from being in university for years. I still see it mentoring undergrads now.

 

[Stringy]

Moving forward, the party needs to explain its economic plan more clearly like Minsterman just did. Show that it really is a credible, maybe even a superior alternative.

 

[Look Out There Are Llamas]

Survation (the only one to eventually call a hung parliament) now have Labour with a 6 point lead...

 

[TomPNE94]

Ha

Well I was right wasn't I? He'll never get in Downing Street, he's lost by 50 seats against a complete non-entity of a campaign. Imagine how many he'd have lost by had the Tories actually taken the time to do anything.

 

[TheMinsterman]

Moving forward, the party needs to explain its economic plan more clearly like Minsterman just did. Show that it really is a credible, maybe even a superior alternative.

Absolutely, they need a way to get their financial message across better and undercut the tedious and predictable soundbites from the Tories, even now I've heard interviewers and the general public dismiss the youth vote as being down to "free tuition" (i.e. the insinuation they just want free stuff and Labour are a party of loons who throw impossible freebies around). Thankfully many of the young people articulated themselves well and made it clear no, it isn't just about free tuition and handouts, but that's a tired old cliché and stereotype about the young that has persisted for some time, the reality is people don't want to keep cleaning up for previous generations mistakes and having their lives dictated by people who, by laws of average are going to cease to exist on this planet much longer and won't have to live with the consequences.

 

[Abertawe]

Well I was right wasn't I? He'll never get in Downing Street, he's lost by 50 seats against a complete non-entity of a campaign. Imagine how many he'd have lost by had the Tories actually taken the time to do anything.

You're clueless, totally clueless but at least you look like a cuddly teddy bear

 

[TheMinsterman]

Well I was right wasn't I? He'll never get in Downing Street, he's lost by 50 seats against a complete non-entity of a campaign. Imagine how many he'd have lost by had the Tories actually taken the time to do anything.

People (not necessarily you I am just using this phrase to bounce off) keep saying this, "he'll never x", "he's going to y", I'd really rather like to see Jeremy Corbyn actually fail before we smear him constantly, we're always told he is going to so we need to get rid... then he doesn't, if people want him gone so desperately they need to actually allow him to fail because that will do the job for them, this constant manufactured narrative around him as an incompetent buffoon incapable of leading or governing (often with zero evidence to back it up, just conjecture) is tiring at this point. All the anti-Corbyn mob are doing are cementing his position further and increasing the devotion of his followers, they're making him a very sympathetic victim whilst trying to turn him into a pariah, it isn't going to work.

In the context of this election there's no way to interpret this as a loss for Corbyn, if you accept the premise that Labour couldn't win. He's suffered instability, knives in the back, leadership contests and a highly hostile press, it's the very reason May called it in the first place, even if you removed him and it was somebody else going into it they wouldn't have won, Labour were not in a position to win, they were however in a position to bloody the Tories nose for their arrogance.

It was the equivalent of a non-title fight, the champion was never going to lose their belt, it was never realistically on the table, but they've lost their aura of invincibility that impacted voters, they've lost their swagger, they've lost their confidence, instead of looking unstoppable they look like a shambles just waiting to be knocked out in a title match.

The Tories have literally just opened the gates during a siege that seemed hopeless.

 

[Aber gas]

Well I was right wasn't I? He'll never get in Downing Street, he's lost by 50 seats against a complete non-entity of a campaign. Imagine how many he'd have lost by had the Tories actually taken the time to do anything.

Give it 4 months my brother.

 

[Stringy]

Well I was right wasn't I? He'll never get in Downing Street, he's lost by 50 seats against a complete non-entity of a campaign. Imagine how many he'd have lost by had the Tories actually taken the time to do anything.

As Scumbag already mentioned, Labour won a 40 per cent share of the vote at this election. In 1997 and 2001, Blair won 43.2 per cent and 40.7 per cent respectively, so the left of the party has now demonstrated that it can be as popular as the right.

A coalition might be needed, but with the Conservative party in disarray and the Labour party united behind the left of the party, this thing is winnable.

 

[Abertawe]

*Motion brought forward to rename thread title to "Labour Gains"*

 

[Laker]

When did Labour bankrupt the country the first time?

"Bankrupt" was a figurative term (I'm not a politician therefore have no responsibility to use spot on words) but the economy was really fucked last time we had a labour government. And that was after a sustained period of boom when the Blair/Brown double act kept borrowing.

I am sceptical as to whether they can raise £48bn+ of tax. £19bn of corp tax - how did they arrive at that figure? My query with that figure comes from the fact that a relatively small amount of tax income comes from corp tax (compared to income tax and VAT). I know what's in their manifesto but do we actually think they can deliver it? That was my question,

 

[Laker]

I don't think that either party being elected is likely to lead to bankruptcy.

Labour would argue that taxation is unfairly weighted in favour of growth for business. They want greater taxation as they believe this would maximise tax revenues which could be spent on other, more worthwhile things - such as improving people's lives.

The Conservatives would argue that higher taxation leads to stagnation in growth and that to maximise tax revenues you must lower taxes, so businesses can grow. Businesses, then, as a result of growth pay more in revenue, which could then be spent on other, more worthwhile things - such as improving people's lives.

Each party disagrees on what the revenue maximising point is, which is why we go around in circles in the economic debate.

My view - both ways can work, but you need to make your own mind up on which way you think is better for the majority of people.

Edit: Obviously this isn't perfect

I understand the two differing points of view and agree that both can theoretically work. I just disagree with the extremity of the Tory approach and question whether the labour one can be achieved. A slightly more moderate view from either side would have pricked my ears up ever so slightly.

 

[TheMinsterman]

*Motion brought forward to rename thread title to "Labour Gains"*

Motion carried.

Abertawe and TheMinsterman, the Progressive Alliance.

 

[Laker]

Because much of their plans was to invest in sectors that would eventually pay back the initial investment and then provide an ongoing profit, renationalising the railways etc would, in time, bring a significant amount of extra revenue into the coffers rather than into private companies bank accounts.

The logic behind less obvious sources of return was that for example if you invest in a better NHS you keep people healthier and alive longer to pay more taxes, if you invest properly in welfare you lower the pressure on people who find themselves out of work and reduce potential mental health problems due to financial worries that would either hinder their job search or worse take them out of the job market and into disability.

Essentially all Labours policies were about investing, what the Tories ("magic money tree") and the press did was convince everybody it was just tossing money away to give people free stuff. Actually it was investing in many sectors which would eventually have a net positive and begin to provide extra revenue streams directly or improve people's lives and create more motivated workforces to bring in more revenue indirectly.

I think free tuition is perhaps wrong personally, lower it because something like 45% will never be repaid but a modest sum as an investment in a student with far better systems for considering candidates because too many people go to uni for the sake of it. Undergraduate degrees are becoming almost entirely worthless because over oversaturation, imo free tuition would only increase that. I don't think modest fees like 2-4K a year as an investment in training for your future career is bad, a big problem is again imo too many people go who don't really care for the subject or a career through it, and I base that from being in university for years. I still see it mentoring undergrads now.

I think they should stagger tuition fees depending on the type of course - ie medicine, physics etc are cheaper than degrees like media studies. But I know others have different views.

I went to uni too but dropped out and got myself a good career in accountancy anyway. In hindsight I didn't need to go but other options were never promoted to be when I was in 6th form. Fortunately I didn't have £9k per year tuition fees as that would have left me in a really bad mess.

I'll finish on my final thought that I like the principles behind Corbyn's budget and that combined with the disastrous Tory budget swung my vote to labour. However I didn't think Labour would/could win so it was a protest vote really. I would only vote labour in the next election of i felt their budget was actually achievable.

 

[Abertawe]

Motion carried.

Abertawe and TheMinsterman, the Progressive Alliance.

Top top modding.

 

[Aber gas]

"Bankrupt" was a figurative term (I'm not a politician therefore have no responsibility to use spot on words) but the economy was really fucked last time we had a labour government. And that was after a sustained period of boom when the Blair/Brown double act kept borrowing.

I am sceptical as to whether they can raise £48bn+ of tax. £19bn of corp tax - how did they arrive at that figure? My query with that figure comes from the fact that a relatively small amount of tax income comes from corp tax (compared to income tax and VAT). I know what's in their manifesto but do we actually think they can deliver it? That was my question,

There was a massive world recession caused by various issues that have been covered elsewhere. The Labour Party of the time was actually quite fiscally conservative in its approach. Certainly more than I'd have liked them to be.
I think they can deliver it, as always when looking at a manifesto a degree of faith is required. McDonnell and his team have published their costings and I'm inclined alongside the 129 economists that backed it http://www.ier.org.uk/news/129-economists-experts-back-labour-proposals to believe it can be done.
I think what's clear though is that the ideology of austerity has been a disaster economically, morally and politically. This country needs investment in its industries and its people. We are a rich country and given the correct stewardship we can become a country to be proud of.

 

[Aber gas]

Labour gains 150000 new members since the election. Ever closer to the million

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

"Bankrupt" was a figurative term (I'm not a politician therefore have no responsibility to use spot on words) but the economy was really fucked last time we had a labour government. And that was after a sustained period of boom when the Blair/Brown double act kept borrowing.

OK, put on your radiation suits as I'm about to defend New Labour (traded in my anarchy card last week, so may as well get my money's worth until they let me have it back).

Running a budget deficit isn't a bad thing at all. A simple equation is that the more a government spends, the more it puts into the private sector and stimulates growth. Most developed economies basically always post a deficit because it's the responsible thing to do. This is from Bloomberg:

The U.S. federal government doesn't actually need to balance its budget. Ever. Really. We could run a budget deficit every year for the next century. We'd be just fine.

How do we know? Well, for one thing, we've basically always done that. Between 1929 and 2013, the average federal budget deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product has been 3.1 percent. Over those 84 years, we've run 70 budget deficits and 14 budget surpluses.

We could run a budget deficit forever and even shrink the relative federal debt burden. All we need to do is keep the long-run budget deficit smaller as a percentage of GDP than the long-run rate of GDP growth. When that happens, GDP outgrows the debt, and the debt-to-GDP ratio declines.

There's even a case for saying that a small budget deficit, maintained forever, helps the economy. Government debt is a safe asset. Safe assets play a crucial role in the keeping financial markets stable. A small budget deficit expands the supply of safe assets in line with growth in the economy.

After ten years of New Labour spending, public debt as a proportion of GDP was lower than when they took over. They'd run a deficit in all but three of those years.

You can see from that graph that debt under new labour (as a percentage of GDP) stayed pretty constant. When the credit crunch hit, we borrowed to bail out the banks, a recession caused tax revenues to fall and the deficit increased dramatically.

Under the coalition, during austerity, debt as a percentage of GDP kept increasing - in part due to Osborne's failure to generate anything other than stagnant growth during his six years in charge. Ironically, it was only when the Tories abandoned Austerity that the situation has stabilised (with debt at about 90% of GDP).

It's not legitimate to say that Labour under Blair and Brown overspent. They only did so when such spending was necessary to avoid economic catastrophe.

You can make the case that Blair and Brown created the conditions where we were overexposed to the credit crunch - causing a financial crisis. And you'd be write to make that case. Light-touch regulation was a disaster. Thankfully no-one is proposing that we head back to those days

 

[Aber gas]

OK, put on your radiation suits as I'm about to defend New Labour (traded in my anarchy card last week, so may as well get my money's worth until they let me have it back).

Running a budget deficit isn't a bad thing at all. A simple equation is that the more a government spends, the more it puts into the private sector and stimulates growth. Most developed economies basically always post a deficit because it's the responsible thing to do. This is from Bloomberg:



After ten years of New Labour spending, public debt as a proportion of GDP was lower than when they took over. They'd run a deficit in all but three of those years.

You can see from that graph that debt under new labour (as a percentage of GDP) stayed pretty constant. When the credit crunch hit, we borrowed to bail out the banks, a recession caused tax revenues to fall and the deficit increased dramatically.

Under the coalition, during austerity, debt as a percentage of GDP kept increasing - in part due to Osborne's failure to generate anything other than stagnant growth during his six years in charge. Ironically, it was only when the Tories abandoned Austerity that the situation has stabilised (with debt at about 90% of GDP).

It's not legitimate to say that Labour under Blair and Brown overspent. They only did so when such spending was necessary to avoid economic catastrophe.

You can make the case that Blair and Brown created the conditions where we were overexposed to the credit crunch - causing a financial crisis. And you'd be write to make that case. Light-touch regulation was a disaster. Thankfully no-one is proposing that we head back to those days

You've changed dude.

 

[Stringy]

The premodern economy had little trust in the future, little credit and slow growth. The modern economy has much trust in the future, much credit and much growth. I can't see any issue in government spending so long as it is invested in sensible projects.

 

[Veggie Legs]

FAO Aber gas

I was reminded of this earlier and I thought you might enjoy it.

Don’t tell me you weren’t warned about Corbyn
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...y-corbyn-labour-threat-party-election-support