What are you advocating when you say this?
I'm advocating public ownership of essential utilities and services.
Re pensions: if we were renationalising companies we could set the pensions up any way we like. We could set the companies up however we want, just without private shareholders. We don't need to repeat the 70s.
True, but I'd say that the majority of voters look at Jezza and the gang around him, and assume (with some clearly stated justification) that repeating the 1970's is exactly what they'd set about doing
DrJ - MemberIt's a discussion about many things - including what is desirable to do even if it is unlikely in the current climate poisoned by people like yourself who simply peddle lies in order to advance their cause.
Lies and criticising him for policy that they have made up in the same post.
True, but I'd say that the majority of voters look at Jezza and the gang around him, and assume (with some clearly stated justification) that repeating the 1970's is exactly what they'd set about doing
Yes, almost as if they have already made up their minds and are twisting what they hear to back themselves up.
Not a good way to run a political debate, but a great way to run a mud-slinging competition.
Has Corbyn advocated renationalising anything other than railways?
I'd say that his stated policies are so vague, often contradictory and confused, or in a lot of cases non-existent, that people will draw their own conclusions Molls. And when they look at the likes of john McDonnell and len McClusky apparently dictating policy, then it's not hard to see where the 70's rerun assumptions come from
Not yet but his Chancellor is an avowed Marxist who believes in state ownership of all major enterprise. Also he couldn't nationalise anything whilst in the EU as it's against the law. The railways he can just decline to renew / rebid the franchise.
I had the eye opening experience of working for a state owned German Bank for 6 months, there is not a worse combination than a bank (with a fat cheque book for loans) and politicians. Some of the biggest Financial crises disasters where the German state banks with a mandate to support local business but which in fact had truck loads of US subprime.
70's Labour delivered 18 years of Tory governments. There is a message there.
Please carry on with the state ownership stuff it's a guaranteed vote loser.
Chancellor is an avowed Marxist who believes in state ownership of all major enterprise.
Yes, but an intelligent person could easily see the difference between an ideal and a practical possibility, don't you think?
Also he couldn't nationalise anything whilst in the EU as it's against the law
Good job we're leaving then, isn't it! 😆
The EU making laws that actually reinforce your position? Priceless 🙂
Some of the biggest Financial crises disasters where the German state banks with a mandate to support local business but which in fact had truck loads of US subprime.
And some others were the fault of private banks. So clearly public or private ownership wasn't the problem.
You are shockingly bad at analysing and debating , Jam, you really are.
and assume (with some clearly stated justification) that repeating the 1970's is exactly what they'd set about doing
Then it would be a false assumption. Expansion of the cooperative sector, universal basic income, democratising the bank of england, people's QE, green investment banks. These are hardly 1970s ideas. The only 70s things they've talked about is free higher education and renationalising of the railways, which have mass popular support.
You are shockingly bad at analysing and debating , Jam, you really are.
Well my 30 years in the finance would suggest otherwise. I matters not whether I am good at debating in your view does it as I keep picking the winning side. The major FU banks where the regional wannabes here in the UK and the regional state banks in Germany.
It doesn't matter whether you think a person could understand the differences in policy, as I asked its whether you could explain them on the doorstep in the marginal constituencies. I have my view.
We could set the companies up however we want
So no consultation with the staff and unions then?
Has Corbyn advocated renationalising anything other than railways?
The NHS
Hence the challenge to you on GP services and Dentistry, when should they be nationalised?
You are shockingly bad at analysing and debating , Jam, you really are.
A pot, a kettle, and the colour black come to mind
So no consultation with the staff and unions then?
Well depends on who you define as 'we' but if I were in charge then however I wanted would include exactly that, consultation with those involved and who might know what they are talking about. In stark contrast to most Tory governments.
A pot, a kettle, and the colour black come to mind
No comment.
Mass slave labour, sweatshop labour, child labour; the subjugation of most of the world's people to sustain the lifestyles of the few.
Sounds familiar, don't tell me, it's on the tip of my tongue...
I know, I know, it's the entity formerly known as the Soviet Union! Do I get a prize?
Article in the Sunday Times today about The Messiah at some shindig for striking train workers or something. Someone piped up from the back, and The Messiah apparently asked, "Which comrade said that?".
Now, it's not so much what the piper up said that is interesting, but what The Messiah himself spake. Does anyone [i]really[/i] use "comrade" unless taking the piss? I mean, it's satire, right, comrade? Isn't it?
Nothing can be as bad as Miliband taking questions in the G.E debates.
"and what's your name sir?"
"Lee"
"ok thankyou Gary"
"LEE"
"sorry, Barry?"
"Lee (ffs)"
"ok um good question"
Corbyn answering question:
"Thankyou Comrade..."
Better imo
CFH well Corbyn's use of the word Comrade is of no surprise to me and yes it is a throw back to the '70s
Frank Skinner was on the NYE Graham Norton Show and said "wealth redistribution is what the Communists do". There in a nutshell is Labour's problem under Corbyn.
Finland trialling basic income for 2000 unemployed now, crazy idiots!
As for the language thing, have you heard Rees-Mogg or Boris talk FFS?
Frank Skinner was on the NYE Graham Norton Show and said "wealth redistribution is what the Communists do". There in a nutshell is Labour's problem under Corbyn.
Wealth redistribution is done today in UK via taxes. Okay it is not done very well but it is a attempt within a very unfair capitalist model. Poorest get credits/benefits, lower tax etc,. rich get just the tax part.
Corbyn's task is to do it properly and get people to understand it but that is very hard when people are not listening and the media, powerful and rich don't want it to happen. It is why he needs to get a bit populist about it.
Corbyn's wealth redistribution (inc citizens income) will be paid for by the Middle Classes. Rich people have the most flexibility and will move assets/themselves and won't pay. We have had ludicrously high taxes before and they don't work.
If universal basic income is such a mad idea why is there such interest in it at the moment? Areas in Canada, Finland, Netherlands running or in the process of setting up trials, Scotland reportedly looking into it too.
Which form of UBI do you think we should be considering Lifer?
The correct one or the Labour fudge?
What's the labour fudge? And is there a 'correct' one at the moment? That people are running limited trials suggests not...
There are different versions, true. As you proposed the idea, I am interested in which version you would support.
People are running trials, we have had an unsuccessful vote in Switz and there is renewed interest in the idea acorss thevpolitical spectrum, although it is not a new idea. Hence it's important to be clear what we are talking about.
I think it's an interesting idea and could solve a lot of problems (increasing automation of jobs simplified benefits system for example), I haven't crunched any numbers but will watch how the trials go in each area.
In terms of which one I think the only way it can be sold to the electorate is as a citizens income, so in work or not everyone receives the same amount. Would tax thresholds have to change?
A few drawbacks I see are pushing people into a higher tax code so they would receive less take home (I don't know if this could happen?), employers seeing it as a subsidy to wages.
It would be good to replace tax credits/benefits with a neater system. Would it replace the state pension?
I think so yes, but I guess that's one of the myriad variables to examine
But this is a key question that too many fudge, avoid or simply get wrong
Are we debating a CI or UBI that replaces existing benefits or merely complements them?
Isn't that up to debate in itself? 😆
For me, replaces. The simplification is the only way I can see money to fund it can be clawed from somewhere, in this case to existing benefits and the cost of administering existing benefits.
re we debating a CI or UBI that replaces existing benefits or merely complements them?
It's got to be a universal replacement for benefits and generous enough to ensure payments don't have to be topped up. Something like 20k a year? It'll take a long time to implement but I think it's inevitable in the long term. If they don't do it then the future govts have a major unemployment and welfare problem to solve. And yes, middle class people will pay for it, one way or the other, whether they like it or not. That will be the price of their good fortune.
As for labour's fudge, they haven't even announced it as a policy yet so how can you reject it? They probably will 'fudge' it, but that's because it's impossible to bring in overnight for all sorts of reasons. It'll take an extended transition to get the amount right, iron out the local irregularities and bring in all the supporting legislation around rent and price controls.
If universal basic income is such a mad idea why is there such interest in it at the moment? Areas in Canada, Finland, Netherlands running or in the process of setting up trials, Scotland reportedly looking into it too.
Interest = Trawling for votes.
Swiss Refefendum rejected it by 77% to 33
Interest = Trawling for votes.Swiss Refefendum rejected it by 77% to 33
Of course they're trawling for votes. That's what political parties do. If they think a UBI is a vote winning policy then that shows it's not as extreme or fringe idea as many make out. Of course the best policies are ones that win votes and also solve big problems. The UBI promises to do both those.
The swiss vote was too early. There'd be a similar result here too. There's an awful lot of education and adjustment of public attitudes which needs to happen first. Even if the labour party promised it as a policy now, it would take 2 parliaments at least to implement.
[quote=jambalaya ]
Swiss Refefendum rejected it by 77% to 33
#jambafact right there
Corbyn's wealth redistribution (inc citizens income) will be paid for by the Middle Classes.
That's fine
Rich people have the most flexibility and will move assets/themselves and won't pay.
Think of a better way to stop them then. Lump sum taxes rather than % that can be avoided
We have had ludicrously high taxes before and they don't work.
The way it was done before, but as above - do it differently/more effectively.
Anyone against even trying is clearly happy with inequality and in most cases going to be one of the fortunate/lucky ones who has money (from family, genetics, education etc,.)
Tax wealth aswell as income.
Anyone read 'animal farm' by George Orwell?
Corbyn's task is to do it properly and get people to understand it but that is very hard when people are not listening and the media, powerful and rich don't want it to happen. It is why he needs to get a bit populist about it.
Its also a pity that of all sitting MP's, theres only one who's less equipped to be populist (barring the appeal to middle class sixth formers, trying to piss their parents off of course). And thats Rees Mogg.
I just can't see UBI being anything other than a disaster as it incentivises the middle class to look for higher returns on their money leading to inflation of assets by enabling higher gearing of loans. Putting more money into the hands of those who are well off makes no sense.
Also what's the out of it is a cockup? Which politician is going to pull the plug?
Actuality Scottie, Jambas is being conservative 😉 the vote against was 78% according to my source.
Tax is a withdrawal from the economy. Be careful how you use it! We are already at/around the level at which tax revenue decreases when you raise the marginal rate. Probably why politicians in power are very careful to raise it eg, SNP or Labour until they set their rather petty, if effective, trap for the Tories
Like rats* in a sack this evening:
Len has told the country the Jez might well step down if he continues to be a clusterf*ckup.
Jez has refused to comment.
Gerard has told Len that he is meant to give a damn about the union's members.
Len has consulted his thesaurus of insults and has called Gerard "unscrupulous".
I wonder what Tess's lead in the polls will be tomorrow.
* Sorry, rats, if you feel degraded by the comparison
UBI instead of complex and costly welfare and other benefits has much to recommend it. UBI in addition to, much less so.
From what I have read, JMcD is verging more towards the latter under the guise of the former, which would be a mistake.
Don't forget - UBI is actually a leftie rebranding of what was actually an ultra-right wing proposal by Milton Friedman of a negative income tax.
I know it must hurt the lefties to admit it, but their golden solution is a classic neo-con idea by the father of trickle-down supply-side economics and Chicago price theory 😆
Dazh so £20k per person, that's £40k a couple then 😯 I probabiy wouldn't bother to work at that level. Assuming it kicked in at 18yrs old then that's lifetime payments of £1.2m per person plus free healthcare etc all assuming zero inflation.
ctk the Swiss have a wealth tax, varies by region but it's around 0.25% and it's offset against other taxes (ie you pay the greater of) so imagine interest rates are 3% and tax on income is 40% that equates to a tax on that "wealth" of 1.2% which is much much higher. Also council tax (mine anyway) is the equivalent of about 0.4% tax on wealth and would be much higher if I had a mortgage, obviously double at 0.8% if mortgage was 50% LTV.
If there really isn't to be enough work in the future for the population (robots, offshore manufacturing etc etc) then the very harsh reality is we need less people. What I find bizarre is that by choice most developed countries (Germany is a very good example) have a low birth rate, they choose to have less kids not least as the costs and lifestyle sacrafices are too high. Then we have politicians telling them they need immigration to pay the pensions of those same people. Seems to me they are making a rational economic and lifestyle choice, if there are pensions to be paid they should be saving for them.
It isn't really ninfan, it's a slightly different concept. And anyway Milton was far from the first person to come up with Neg Taxation concepts anyway, I know of at least one Liberal politician of the 40's proposing it. I can't be arsed to look her (I think) up.
the very harsh reality is we need less people
Looking forward to seeing how you propose to put this into practice.
Of course your idea is utter blx. If robots will do all the work, then humans can sit back and relax, however many there are.
NIckC - Rhys-Williams? I don't believe that he concept was fully formed by then, but the idea was so popular with them that she left the Liberals and joined the Tories 😀