Jeremy Corbyn

A lower approval rating than any of Foot, IDS and Howard is an achievement and not a good one.

He won't make it 2020, he'll have had a breakdown by then, have you not seen how angry he gets when questioned by reporters.

Judging on his form so far, he won't have any trouble being voted Best Laughing Stock (by, you know, the electorate) if he does last to 2020.

he'll have had a breakdown by then, have you not seen how angry he gets when questioned by reporters.

That's not anger, it's passion.

#spinnersbespinning

[url= http://order-order.com/2016/08/31/tories-lead-14-points/ ]Let's just rejoice at that news[/url] as The Lady once said.

I think the calculation of seats doesn't take into account the levelling of the playing field with the constituency boundary changes or the fact that the far left will take those changes as an opportunity to field new, more unelectable, candidates to teach the Blairites a lesson.

I think if Corbyn kept the loss of seats to 35 in 2020 for a total of 195 he should get a round of applause. My prediction is 150

Guido Fawkes comment section 😯

Guido Fawkes comment section is *very* lightly moderated ( if at all ).

It may, in presenting different views, violate a person's safe-space.

Without any lube.

http://order-order.com/2016/09/01/kippers-for-corbyn/

Turns out the guy is a comedy genius 🙄

"At one PLP meeting Jeremy started talking about how vulnerable people “were being forced to borrow money from hedge funds”.

Yet more on Tragic Jeremy.

He's just so...

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-tended-to-read-from-prepared-script-at-cabinet-meetings-says-former-frontbencher-a7220836.html ]Tragic[/url]

This session of parliament is going to be a disaster. Huge Brexit issues and Labour simply has no credible Shadow cabint team resources to call on. Badge wearing IRA supprters as IT advisors, whatever next

Long may it continue, his work in destroying the left wing agenda is far from done.

Can we discuss McDonnell's citizen's income yet ? "Much work to be done on the proposal he says" 😀

Can we discuss McDonnell's citizen's income yet ? "Much work to be done on the proposal he says"

Assuming you're actually interested in discussing it, rather than shouting 'loony left communists' from your ivory tower, yes.

Perhaps the single most radical and transformative policy any british political party has proposed. Not sure we're quite ready for it yet, and it would have to be implemented in stages rather than in one go and be supported by other legislation around rent caps and protections etc, but in principal it's a great idea. Hardly a surprise that more work is required. Or do you expect policies like that to be designed on the back of an envelope?

only thing with the citizen's income is the country is half full of spiteful little ****ers who would throw their toys out of the pram at the suggestion that other people like different things and have different motivations but are equally as worthy as individuals

Kinder Gentler Politcs

Ruth Smeeth MP is now under count terrorism police protection after death threat from Corbyn supporter (complete of course with anti-semitic abuse). Not an "imaginary" troll @ctk

One link of many, being covered in French press too

[url= http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/706577/fanatic-tells-Jewish-MP-Ruth-Smeeth-hanged-treason-against-anti-semitism-Jeremy-Corbyn ]link[/url]

@dazh - £1000 (?) a month an adult for life, I think that would pay for some great sabaticals. If it could be arranged, say as a consultant, to work one year and take a year off I'd go for that as it would reduce the tax bill too (less higher rate tax to pay as income divided over 2 years - dividendsd out from a LTD company).

Swiss voted overwhelmingly against when put to a Referendum. You just cannot make the numbers work.

@yunki everyone is free to have different priorities, if some people chose not to earn money that's up to them but they shouldn't be given any if they can't be bothered to work.

Pure popularism from McDonnell.

....is the country is half full of spiteful little **** who would throw their toys out of the pram at the suggestion that other people like different things and have different motivations but are equally as worthy as individuals

Many a true word.....

@Jamby glad your admitting that your other examples were trolls.;)

We cannot take death threats too seriously, it was only this summer that an MP got killed by a RIGHT WING loony.

@yunki everyone is free to have different priorities, if some people chose not to earn money that's up to them but they shouldn't be given any if they can't be bothered to work.

£1000 (?) a month an adult for life

I haven't seen anything suggesting that much. It's true that it has to be high in order for it to succeed, but the figures I"ve heard suggested by it's supporters are in the region of £100-£150 per week.

Swiss voted overwhelmingly against when put to a Referendum. You just cannot make the numbers work.

You think the Swiss rejection was about the numbers? Or was it about an anti-something-for-nothing mentality? It seems to me the real challenge is not the economics, but changing attitudes of society towards poverty, unemployment, the work-ethic etc. Hence why I don't think we're not ready for it yet.

, if some people chose not to earn money that's up to them but they shouldn't be given any if they can't be bothered to work

why?

Hey yunki. Tell you what. I don't want to work. I could get by on ooh, £1500 a monyth, give or take.

Fund me, would you?

Reading Yunki's posts is like the ramblings of stroppy sixth former....receiving money is a reward for doing something, if someone chooses to do nothing with their time then they get nothing in return, simple really....and fair for everyone else working to provide for the workshy in society.

brilliant answers from the intellectual giants of the forum there 😆

We already subscribe to a system that loosely resembles this and the vast majority of people are happy with it ('cept for the handful of spiteful ne'er do wells who moan about everything all the time anyway)

What harm would it do to stop alienating those that choose not to work?
What harm would it do to give everybody the same?
Are you afraid that more people would choose not to work as a result?

Fund me, would you?

working to provide for the workshy in society.

Perfect examples of my point above. The trouble with a policy like this is that it requires a level of mature open-mindedness which most people in this country simply don't have. The majority will think it's about 'paying for the workshy', when in reality it's nothing to do with that.

The majority will think it's about 'paying for the workshy', when in reality it's nothing to do with that.

The majority will think it's about 'paying for the workshy', when in reality it's nothing to do with that.

Yunki asked specifically what would be wrong with giving money to people who did not want to work.

He seems to think that me asking him for funding directly because I do not want to work is somehow intellectually sub-normal.

I must be thick, I suppose.

I suppose so

Pure popularism from McDonnell.

But you're going for Trump who has to be the ultimate populist 🙄

What harm would it do to give everybody the same?

The usual STW answer - its not fair

But the NLW has merits (and demerits) and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. The problem is that the answer to whether it is a good idea are far from straightforward and as always with the law of unintended consequences evidence that it may harm more than help those its meant to target.

I did like my old macro prof's down-to-earth analysis in the FT when they debated this

“Most people who earn the existing minimum wage, or close to that, are employed in the ‘non-tradables’ sector, that is, they are working to produce goods and particularly services which are not internationally traded (eg catering).

“That has two implications: first, there is no international competitiveness downside to raising the cost of labour in these areas; and second, what we should expect and indeed predict publicly in advance is a rise in the relative price of those goods and services, but a rise which should be seen as perfectly acceptable.

“In popular terms, you and I can expect to pay a bit more for our espressos, and the people who make and serve them can expect to get a better standard of living, and that’s fine.”

Having said that I agreed more with an opposing view that noted that wages alone were a vey blunt policy choice. Lets hope John has done the full homework this time.

Interesting topic.

only thing with the citizen's income is the country is half full of spiteful little **** who would throw their toys out of the pram at the suggestion that other people like different things and have different motivations but are equally as worthy as individuals

So why is it OK to give money (from taxation) to people who don't want to work, but not OK to give it to me (by, let's call it direct taxation) because I don't want to work?

yunki

So why is it OK to give money (from taxation) to people who don't want to work, but not OK to give it to me (by, let's call it direct taxation) because I don't want to work?

Are you being facetious or do you really not know the answer to this? Assuming the latter, because if you do it on a national scale you eradicate poverty, simplify the benefits system, boost the economy etc, whereas if you do it just for you, no one else benefits except you.

woppit that is not quite was is being proposes is it?

Universal basic income would involve ditching means-tested benefits in favour of an unconditional flat-rate payment to all citizens, whether they are in work or out of work.

This is the background research from the Fabian's - again a bit different to the headlines

Sounds a lot like Corbyn's supporters that does.

the word [i]equally[/i] is the salient point there

There are good reasons for providing a welfare safety net, but my own response to someone asking for money because they don't want to work is likely to be somewhere in the area of piss off, mate.

but my own response to someone asking for money because they don't want to work is likely to be somewhere in the area of piss off, mate.

I think we've established that. But I'll repeat, that's not what it's about. One way or the other, society already pays for people who don't work, it's just indirect. There's a direct correlation between poverty and unemployment with healthcare costs for example. There's also plenty of evidence that suggests that increased benefits does not result in an increase in people choosing not to work. Don't suppose you're interested in that though.

Just imagine how much everyone's quality of life would improve with a citizen's wage.

Just imagine how much everyone's quality of life would improve with a citizen's wage.

yep, that seems to be the thinking for everyone in favour and also about 75% of those against the idea 😆

Balance of power shifts from employers to employees. Shit poorly paid job, with bad managers? Just quit, you don't need another lined up straight away. Want a year off to travel the world? Just do it.

I think we've established that. But I'll repeat, that's not what it's about. One way or the other, society already pays for people who don't work, it's just indirect. There's a direct correlation between poverty and unemployment with healthcare costs for example. There's also plenty of evidence that suggests that increased benefits does not result in an increase in people choosing not to work. Don't suppose you're interested in that though.

Don't see anything in your post about people receiving money because they don't want to work.

but my own response to someone asking for money because they don't want to work is likely to be somewhere in the area of piss off, mate

but it's just a basic payment, say you set it at £150 a week, so that's £600 a month. For some-one who not working that's £600. For some-one who's working it's a pay rise of £600...what the problem with that?

It's only supposed to be subsistence, that's the point. So people would still want to work - but maybe for fewer hours, or maybe on other more flexible terms. Quality of life goes up, overall happiness across the country goes up. I can't see a problem - assuming it's affordable of course.

Don't see anything in your post about people receiving money because they don't want to work.

You don't receive money because you don't want to work. You receive money because you're a citizen, regardless of whether or not you want to work.

I refer the Hon. Gentleman to my reply given previously.

I refer the gentkeman to my reply given previously.

Which one? The one including "piss off mate" ?

That suggests to me that you don't want to pay people who aren't working, yes?

I can't see a problem - assuming it's affordable of course

You don't receive money because you don't want to work. You receive money because you're a citizen, regardless of whether or not you want to work.

but it's just a basic payment, say you set it at £150 a week, so that's £600 a month. For some-one who not working that's £600. For some-one who's working it's a pay rise of £600...what the problem with that?

if I'm getting that for not working I'm sure as hell not working.

You'll get much more if you work though.

It would be interesting to see what percentage of people would actually not work at all if this happened.

Read up on inflation.

Interesting point. However - this might be slightly different. Suppliers of goods would still be subject to competition, and they could afford to cut prices further given that they themselves would be getting the wage too. So it might not quite work out the way classical inflation does. But IANAE.

Balance of power shifts from employers to employees. Shit poorly paid job, with bad managers? Just quit, you don't need another lined up straight away. Want a year off to travel the world? Just do it.

Do you not just end up in the position that company has to pay more for the job (and thus every other job up the 'ladder'). To cover that increase then price of the thing the company does (coffee, food, nappies etc.) has to go up. So your money just goes less far and back to square one?

molgrips - Member
I refer the gentkeman to my reply given previously.
Which one? The one including "piss off mate" ?
That suggests to me that you don't want to pay people who aren't working, yes?

Yes.

No.

Read up on inflation.

yep, it's about the only serious down side to this, so you'd have to introduce some anti inflationary measures alongside it if it was introduced, rent controls and so on.

Do you not just end up in the position that company has to pay more for the job (and thus every other job up the 'ladder'). To cover that increase then price of the thing the company does (coffee, food, nappies etc.) has to go up. So your money just goes less far and back to square one?

Yes.

No.

Help me out...?

Do you not just end up in the position that company has to pay more for the job

Not necessarily.. employers don't just compete for staff on salary. I'd imagine a lot of people would be demanding more attractive terms for less money, because they could afford to. Four day weeks for instance. Or 6 hour days to match school hours. That'd be pretty popular imo.

so you'd have to introduce some anti inflationary measures alongside it if it was introduced, rent controls and so on.

Standard anti inflationary tool is higher interest rates. Maybe higher VAT too, add it to food as everyone is better off so can afford to pay.

Rent control would do little to control inflation as 68% people own their own home. I think I am correct in saying private rented (and this subject to rent control) is less than half rented housing stock in UK as most is council/housing association run.

molgrips - Member
Yes.
No.
Help me out...?

OK but there'd be a fee upfront.

Rent control would do little to control inflation

sure, it was just an example, like child care vouchers putting the prices of nursery care up overnight, UB would mean that the petite bourgeois landlords would have a motive to instantly put the rent up...

wasn't suggesting that rent control could control "inflation"... sorry, I don't think I was clear.

Ruth Smeeth received 20,000 pieces of abuse in 12 hours after the anti-senitism report launch incident. 20,000.

Yunki once again I am not stigmatising people who don't want to work. That's 100% their choice. I'd rather not work if I didn't have to.

£150 a week per adult is about [b]£320 billion[/b] a year ? 40 million adults ?

So it's better not to be petit bourgeois if you're going to be a landlord.

Thanks for the tip.

@nick understood

Just a quick thought but isn't this likley to make houses more expensive? Everyone will have more money, but the well off will get more of a gearing effect on their mortgage?

So it's better not to be petit bourgeois if you're going to be a landlord.

you are Dennis the constitutional peasant, and I claim my mud...

Just a quick thought but isn't this likley to make houses more expensive?

Perhaps. But a govt left enough to implement this ought to be building enough houses to take the pressure off the market anyway...

£150 a week per adult is about £320 billion a year ? 40 million adults ?

Christ, that's almost as much as the EU costs us 😆

same old stingy whingers getting their feathers all ruffled 🙄

[url= https://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/1/9/1357739565544/Public-spending-on-Benefi-001.jp g" target="_blank">https://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/1/9/1357739565544/Public-spending-on-Benefi-001.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

Click to make bigger.

£320bn a year is less than what we spend now on all benefits. Not sure which of those benefits would continue, but it's that outrageous a sum. Which is why it's being discussed.

So we cut all other benefits and just give everyone a lump sum? Irrelevant of their specific needs? That's, well, that's brave if nothing else.

£320 mil a year is more than we spend I think molgrips?

Dwp total spend £167 mil

Govt total spend £695 mil

Ah, the magic money tree remains alive and well on STW.....

Ironically for a policy being proposed by the Labour Party, the "Citizens' Wage" has an equal number of supporters on the right (the most obvious being Milton Friedman, hardly known for his left wing credentials).

At its heart is the aim both of simplifying the benefits system and eliminating the poverty trap, so that any earned income is retained rather than eroding benefits received.

It really isn't about making everyone richer (you can't do that just by paying people lots of money for reasons that are surely obvious) nor about redistributing wealth (that is perfectly possible within the current tax & benefits system; whether you think it is done too little or too much is personal opinion).

In principle it has many attractions (and I doubt there are too many other economic policies where I would potentially agree with John McDonnell). However for it to be effective (and have a broadly neutral fiscal impact), a number of significant problems need to be overcome.

The first, particularly for the left, is that it needs to be set at a level which is sufficiently low that it is both affordable and does not act as a disincentive to obtaining paid work. Figures I have seen are of the order of £3.5k per person excluding housing costs.

The second is housing costs (and possibly transport costs) which, as they vary so widely across the country, would need to be treated separately in some way. That simply re-introduces much of the complexity that was removed from scrapping the benefits system.

The third is that a Citizen's Wage implicitly assumes that everyone is capable of topping it up with paid employment (and if it is set so high as to make this unnecessary then it becomes too great a disincentive to paid work and too expensive). This is clearly not the case and so a vestigial benefits system would still be required, meaning you again end up back where you started.

So whilst in principle I have always supported the idea, which is by no means a new one, in practice I suspect the obstacles are just too great.

Neither brave nor radical enough to propose that - unfortunately they are going for a hybrid/fudge/bit of a muddle instead. In fact they specifically reject the idea of a fully-fledged universal income (sadly) - this is more of a top up.

It's a shame as their core point ie, our social security system is not fit-for-purpose, is perfectly valid. But like the NHS radical reform remains off the table.

Friedman may have agreed with some of the core concept but I doubt this would have extended to the Fabian's recommendations re "activist government, with economic intervention etc."

However for it to be effective (and have a broadly neutral fiscal impact), a number of significant problems need to be overcome.

Absolutely. I'm not into slogan spouting banner waving politics - this is quite a technical issue imo and needs major thought. The kind of thought which has been in short supply for the last ooh, I dunno.. decade or so...

So whilst in principle I have always supported the idea, which is by no means a new one, in practice I suspect the obstacles are just too great.

I think the obstacles are great, but I wouldn't bin the idea because of it. Just work towards it. JFK had the right idea when it came to challenges, if not the ultimate benefits 🙂

£320bn a year is less than what we spend now on all benefits. Not sure which of those benefits would continue, but it's that outrageous a sum. Which is why it's being discussed.

Out of interest, how does the £320bn pa compare to spending on corporate welfare (including allowances to low earners because employers don't pay their staff enough to live, thus the employer is subsidised as it can get away with paying its staff less). Also, how does it compare to tax evasion?

The first, particularly for the left, is that it needs to be set at a level which is sufficiently low that it is both affordable and does not act as a disincentive to obtaining paid work.

Not sure that's true. Everything I've read about it says it has to be set sufficiently high (at least much higher than current benefit levels) so that you don't then have to top it up with other benefits as otherwise there's no point. This means it'll inevitably be more than what is currently spent on benefits. I doubt people would give up work. Even if it was 10k a year that's still significantly lower than the national average wage.

Yes, yes, this is all well and good, but are we not dealing with the more pressing social issues raised by Jeremy today?

Is that a pint in your hand comrade?

[url= http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-slams-sexist-afterwork-pub-culture-for-being-unfair-on-mothers-a3335001.html ]SEXIST!!!!![/url]

😆

The first, particularly for the left, is that it needs to be set at a level which is sufficiently low that it is both affordable and does not act as a disincentive to obtaining paid work.

Why is that a problem for the left?

good, but are we not dealing with the more pressing social issues raised by Jeremy today?

Actually the discussion had become quite interesting again. Oh well 🙁

Not really - this is a topic with broad political appeal and the Fabians are more closely allied with those awful Blairy people - have a look at the recent publication lists.

The common theme for this thread is: take a good idea and butcher it. But correct it is an interesting idea (in its proper form)

Owen Smith 5/2 ...

May have a bet.

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/05/corbyn-investigating-claims-leadership-contest-is-being-rigged ]Anything in this then or just more lefty paranoia?[/url]

I'm surprised Binners hasn't already posted this already 🙂 It's quite ironic though that Corbyn's supporters are the ones accused of stalinist era tactics.

He must be very pleased to have received the support of UB20 😀

I'd forgotten all about him, anyway it is energy policy today. Anyone want to try and understand what the below statement means? It seems high on rhetoric and low on proper details, e.g. will they maintain the local electricity and gas infrastructure?

[i]That is why I am today announcing a bold new set of policies which will pioneer a democratic, community-led system of energy supply. Over the course of the next parliament, we will use public investment and legislation to promote the creation of over 200 local energy companies, giving towns, cities and localities the powers they need to drive a clean, locally accountable energy system with public, not-for-profit companies.[/i]

Full article is here: [url= https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2016/sep/07/why-labour-is-putting-energy-reform-at-heart-of-its-green-agenda-jeremy-corbyn ]Guardian[/url]

I've now come to the conclusion that the Labour party has just decided its going to jack in politics, as its crap at it, and become a surrealist performance art installation instead, with a view to winning the Turner Prize next year. And just to get the nomination in the bag, they may have jumped the shark with[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/06/jeremy-corbyn-ub40-dullest-music-qa-of-all-time-hits-bum-note ] this latest stunt[/url]...

[img] ?w=748&h=471&crop=1[/img] 😯