The Labour Thread

[Indian Dan]

Homer as Corbin

 

[Renegade]

So Theresa, why did you think it was a good idea to call a snap general election just before the UK's most important negotiating period in decades? And why did you keep repeating the same words over and over again?

 

[rudebwoyben]

How Labour governments in the 70s performed is absolutely no guide to how one would perform today. For a start the trade unions do not have the same sort of activist leadership that they did in the 70s (No McCluskey and Serwotka don't count) and they know that they cannot rock a Labour government too much as it will endanger their too position too. Secondly, a Labour government today would face totally different economic challenges to the Wilson/Callaghan ones, which had to deal with two successive massive hikes in the price of oil and resulted in the U.K. seeking IMF assistance.

 

[Techno Natch]

ALL young people? And you honestly think a Labour government will slash prices, increase services and run a industry with no cancellations? Chuck in the inevitable strikes as unions flex their new found muscle with a compliant government to increase wages - that'll improve things.

All us oldies can remember is the dead unable to be buried, rubbish stockpiling on the street uncollected due to strikes and being taxed like fuck. Makes no odds to me these days, but if that's what you want you're welcome to it

My post wasn't 100% serious to be honest. Although all young people hear about is how great things were in the past, but now it's another party looking strong we're told it was shit back then too?

I'd rather try something different to the poor and sick being treated like shit though. As Ben has rightly pointed out it's not the 70's now and are the proprosels even the same?

A strong and organised workforce sounds great to me too. Austerity has been an absolute con for many of us so it's not surprising that we'll be interested if someone offers us something different. We don't know what's going to happen, but the gamble Is Worth It And It's The Exact Same Train Of Thought That Got Trump Into Power.

(Am I Still A Young Voter At 28 Anyway?)

Sorry For The Random Capitals My Phone Keyboard Messes Up On ThIs Site For Some Reason. . . . .

 

[Benji]

Based on this graphic 'young' means under 45, female, London-based or Welsh.

 

[Indian Dan]

So, as you get older and you've got responsibilities - married with kids? - people ditch their starry eyed impression of socialism as reality bites. Pretty much what I banged on about.

 

[Stevencc]

Or they get even older still and decide to vote selfishly, with little regard for the younger generation or a future they won't be alive to see.

 

[Indian Dan]

Or as you get older you realise the futility of voting at all as, tbh, fuck all changes. It's all sound and fury signifying nothing. (Macbeth ref there)

 

[Jockney]

So, as you get older and you've got responsibilities - married with kids? - people ditch their starry eyed impression of socialism as reality bites. Pretty much what I banged on about.

Average age of first-time parents: 29-years-old.
Average age for fathers as a whole: 33-years-old. Average age for mothers as a whole: 30-years-old.

Age demographic for those parents: 25-44. Overwhelmingly Labour.

So it seems, actually, that the older people get, with the less responsibilities they have -- children leaving home, paying off their mortgage -- people actually get more selfish.

You wuz sayin...?

 

[rudebwoyben]

So, as you get older and you've got responsibilities - married with kids? - people ditch their starry eyed impression of socialism as reality bites. Pretty much what I banged on about.

Gotta say that my age group 35-44 aren't particularly young and we voted 50-30 in favour of Labour.
Perhaps some of us aspire for a society which amounts to more than being a me-first drudge-fest, which is basically the Tories' offer. After all, in the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, the Tories promise everyone "plenty of work."

 

[Abertawe]

So, as you get older and you've got responsibilities - married with kids? - people ditch their starry eyed impression of socialism as reality bites. Pretty much what I banged on about.

No mate, it just means that those older folk who have only ever sourced their information from a handful of billionaire media barons are far more likely to vote for policies or parties that said media barons advocate. Obviously they don't benefit from even a modest redistribution of wealth and hence unleash this slugs for salt programme that minds like yourself lap up.

 

[Indian Dan]

All I'm saying is voting for some idealistic future that I guarantee will not happen is just fooling yourselves. No matter who you vote for, they'll fuck it up. Yes, it's a cynical view but one based on experience.

If you want something the only person you can rely on to achieve it is yourself - not expecting some utopian old twat to hand it to you on a plate with no effort required.

 

[Aber gas]

It must have been terrible for those older people with their tuition free, grant maintained educations, affordable ( state maintained) transport, index linked wage rises, secure employment, affordable housing ( both council and private) and guaranteed cradle to grave care.
There is a certain sense amongst a portion of this country that they should "pull up the drawbridge" on stuff that benefited them and today's kids and adults should just accept poverty and insecurity as their lot. Stop moaning and carry on being poor you whinging ingrates seems to be the message.
On a related note, a lot of "baby boomers" seem to think they actually fought in the war. Which is odd.

 

[Indian Dan]

Depends which war you mean.

 

[Renegade]

Indian Dan's outlook on life:

Yes, there is a Simpsons quote for everything. Voting Labour will probably not impinge your ability to be self-reliant. However, it should provide a fairer society for the impoverished, the disabled, the sick and the elderly that may not have such luxury. People generally become more conservative over time to protect their assets (including their family's) or through disillusionment, not because they have other people's interests in mind.

 

[Aber gas]

Jezza is welcomed back to parliament.
https://twitter.com/el4jc/status/874635657523716096

 

[Jockney]

Depends which war you mean.

Erm... The Troubles?

Actually, that would explain a lot.

 

[Stringy]

All I'm saying is voting for some idealistic future that I guarantee will not happen is just fooling yourselves. No matter who you vote for, they'll fuck it up. Yes, it's a cynical view but one based on experience.

If you want something the only person you can rely on to achieve it is yourself - not expecting some utopian old twat to hand it to you on a plate with no effort required.

- 50p rate of tax on those earning above £123,000
- 45p rate of tax on £80,000 and above.
- Free childcare, expanding free provisions for two, three and four year olds
- Guarantee triple lock for pensioner incomes
- End to zero hours contracts
- 10,000 new police officers, 3,000 new firefighters

High taxes on high earners, childcare for parents, protections for pensioners, rights for workers, a bit of investment in public services and some nationalisation of industries in the interest of the people who must use them. The road that any decent 21st century nation should be taking.

It's not the 19th century any more.

Utopian my arse!

 

[Indian Dan]

And you think they can pay for all their election promises with a few more quid from top earners and upping corp tax on companies - many of whom will relocate putting more people out of work.

If they do make good on those promises average joe will end up paying for them.

 

[Habbinalan]

It must have been terrible for those older people with their tuition free, grant maintained educations, affordable ( state maintained) transport, index linked wage rises, secure employment, affordable housing ( both council and private) and guaranteed cradle to grave care.
There is a certain sense amongst a portion of this country that they should "pull up the drawbridge" on stuff that benefited them and today's kids and adults should just accept poverty and insecurity as their lot. Stop moaning and carry on being poor you whinging ingrates seems to be the message.
On a related note, a lot of "baby boomers" seem to think they actually fought in the war. Which is odd.

That's fine, so long as you don't paint all of Jez and my generation with that brush - it's my fellow over 60s buddies (and Billy Bragg) that have been bombarding me with all of the Corbyn, RightsInfo, 14th November Movement, We are the 48 and similar social media links.

 

[JaseTheVillain]

And you think they can pay for all their election promises with a few more quid from top earners and upping corp tax on companies - many of whom will relocate putting more people out of work.

If they do make good on those promises average joe will end up paying for them.

This myth needs to die. The proposed corporation tax rises would still have left the UK with the SECOND LEAST CORPORATION TAX IN THE EUROPEAN UNION (which, yes we would have still been leaving).

 

[Abertawe]

And you think they can pay for all their election promises with a few more quid from top earners and upping corp tax on companies - many of whom will relocate putting more people out of work.

If they do make good on those promises average joe will end up paying for them.

Where will they go and why would they leave one of the most consumable countries on earth?

 

[rudebwoyben]

Yep, that proposed raising of Corporation Tax will raise it to below the EU average!
Companies locate themselves in a particular place for various reasons. A low rate of Corporation Tax is just one of them, good infrastructure and a well educated and trained workforce are other reasons.
There are plenty of other means for the government to raise revenue. Taxing wealth rather than income is one of them, a Tobin style tax on financial transactions is another.

 

[Aber gas]

That's fine, so long as you don't paint all of Jez and my generation with that brush - it's my fellow over 60s buddies (and Billy Bragg) that have been bombarding me with all of the Corbyn, RightsInfo, 14th November Movement, We are the 48 and similar social media links.

Of course not Alan! Tbh it's not necessarily an age thing, it's a mindset among Tories that despite any help or advantages that have benefited them everyone else can fuck off.

 

[Techno Natch]

All I'm saying is voting for some idealistic future that I guarantee will not happen is just fooling yourselves. No matter who you vote for, they'll fuck it up. Yes, it's a cynical view but one based on experience.

If you want something the only person you can rely on to achieve it is yourself - not expecting some utopian old twat to hand it to you on a plate with no effort required.

The point is People are already putting the effort in but they have very little to show for it. 1/3rd of familes now in Poverty are in work and it's an increase of 1 milllion since 2010. Figure that one out.

I'm well aware that voting is just a small part of what we can do. Our struggles won't be won at the ballot box but I'd still rather take my chances with Labour than the Tories.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

So, as you get older and you've got responsibilities - married with kids? - people ditch their starry eyed impression of socialism as reality bites.

Dan, I used to take solace in this idea; however, as the lads have pointed out, there is very little psephological data to support it. And, on a personal note, most of the really insufferable commie lunatics I know are in their late 30s or early 40s.

The main problem is that it’s been at least four decades since a genuinely leftist Labour government presided over a period of chaos, meaning few Britons under 50 have any memory of how wretched it is being governed by socialists. The stats and graphs the lads have provided are quite interesting when considered in this context.

So, no need to panic. No need to do anything radical like engage in the battle of ideas, develop policies targeted at young people, or do anything about the fact that 99% of the people working in the publicly-funded education system hate our fucking guts. We just need Uncle Jeremy to take charge and turn the country into the Venezuela of the North Atlantic. Then everything will change.

(And if it doesn't, we'll all be dead one day anyway.)

 

[Jockney]

Labour's plans for a different economic model has been public for some time. It barely got a mention in the MSM over the anti-Corbyn insurgency, which now looks like a particularly big error considering it was patently obvious that the print media and broadcasters had no inkling how to effectively counter the manifesto when it leaked (or indeed in the ensuing weeks until the election.) The Alternative Models of Ownership report looks like it had a big influence on their section on re-nationalisation. It's probably also the one thing that scares savvy Conservative officials more than anything else.

Labour’s report holds out the promise for a different kind of state, one that recognizes public ownership is a means for more democracy, not an end in itself.

In a more democratic state, workers might elect front-line managers within a national railway company whose board included representatives from unions, passenger rights groups, and local government. Community councils of patients could help chart the strategy of a public hospital — an idea the NHS briefly flirted with in the 1970s. Economic democracy is far more than public ownership.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/06/labour-corbyn-general-election-nationalization

This is the source of excitement for the left, rather than the soft-left, I think; and where the cleavage between social democrats and socialists begins. A softly, softly approach that deftly blurs the lines of what the public thinks is reasonable at a given political moment is how you begin to change the conversation. Then you ramp things up.

http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/PDFs/9472_Alternative Models of Ownership all_v4.pdf

 

[Stringy]

And you think they can pay for all their election promises with a few more quid from top earners and upping corp tax on companies - many of whom will relocate putting more people out of work.

If they do make good on those promises average joe will end up paying for them.

This is just wrong.

(1) 'And you think that they can pay for all their election promises with a few more quid from top earners and upping corp tax on companies'.

"Cuts to corporation tax delivered since 2010 will be worth almost £15 billion a year to business by 2021". That is taken directly from the 2016 budget which planned to slash corporation tax to 17 per cent. An increase in corporation tax would raise enormous revenue and pay for the proposed changes.

(2) 'Many of whom will relocate'.

I'd be interested if you could provide an argument to sustain this. A small increase in corporation tax is unlikely to result in the mass abandonment of a rich, consumer society. Also, I can't imagine that there's a surplus of middle managers and skilled professionals waiting to move into the head offices of those organisations which are relocating.

(3) 'Putting people out of work.'

So you subscribe to the idea that lower taxes = more money for business growth and expansion which in turn means more employment. It's an argument trumpeted by the right, but it has one crucial flaw - greed.

Businesses simply cannot be trusted to deliver an improvement in the lives of the majority of people. Whether corporation tax is 17 per cent or 28 per cent matters not one iota to companies. Companies are motivated by one thing alone- profit. They will not leave a prosperous economy.

It also has a more sinister side. The company will always drive down wages and increase working hours to maximise profits. In the free market utopia, the best employees abandon companies which do this and work for better competitors. In reality, this can't happen. Many of our larger industries are dominated by monopolies or in a tight labour market the jobs to which you would move just do not exist.

It should be the job of government to deliver the things that these companies - with no social conscience - just cannot.

If the government is not for the good of the people, then what the heck is it for?

 

[Indian Dan]

Just show me a comparable country, run by socialists, that is a success.

France is a basket case, youth employment is high, a huge number of those in work are employed in the public sector and any government which tries to change their terms and conditions to get their economy competitive is met with strike action. They invariably back down.

 

[smat]

tfw theres an actual conversation about socialist policies because theres an actual party with actual electoral capability promising to actually make them actual