Jeremy Corbyn

ninfan - Member

How do you nationalise the service without the government taking ownership of the rolling stock?

In exactly the same way that the private operators run the service without taking ownership of the rolling stock, or the rail network.

Eh? How is that nationalised then? The assets remain in private ownership, with the government paying the profits to the owners for permission to use them.

Thanks not nationalisation, it's closer to PFI.

You do it in stages ninfan. It really is that simple. It's as simple as you objecting to everything corbyn does but loving any crap uttered by Trump or Tories.

How can you do it in stages? Above you suggested that you do it when contracts run out - but the contracts/franchises have nothing to do with the rolling stock (the TOC leases them off a ROSCO, who actually own them (not contracted, actually owned)

If you want to nationalise, your only option is to take ownership off the ROSCO, and to do that, you are going to have to buy the trains off them - and of course the ROSCO will have signed a long term loan with the bank (hundreds of millions in loans) to pay for the train, so you either have to cover any early settlement fees, or take on the debt and keep making the bank payments.

So given the near 5bn annual investment by the government compared with a much smaller private investment which makes more sense? I'll leave the details to actual experts but a deal should be possible over a number of years that returns more control and return on investment.

An end to tuition fees and restoration of grants. For me this is the single best policy in the labour manifesto. There are many other good ones, but this ticks so many boxes I really think it will win a lot of votes. Not only does it promote social mobility, it helps lots of families who really do worry about their kids being saddled with ridiculous levels of debt, for no real guarantee of a decent job. I've got two kids who will be reaching university age in around 6-9 years time. If I have the means, I plan to pay the fees for them. I just don't understand how it could possibly be a good thing for young people coming out of uni into an uncertain jobs market to be in massive debt. A removal of these fees potentially saves me something like £50k. Quite frankly that's a no-brainer.

ninfan - Member

The assets remain in private ownership, with the government paying the profits to the owners for permission to use them.

Do you think the TOCs pay all of their profits to the ROSCOs?

It's not how you'd build a national railway from scratch but you work with what you have- the rolling stock leasing does work reasonably well (and most of the issues with it come from weak regulation and the false competition among operators). It would continue to work just as well with operation in public hands- just as it did, in fact, with East Coast.

Did none you see the ex boss of East Coast when it public run on the news last night.

He agreed they'd done a good job and improved services whilst returning a sizeable chunk of cash back to the government. However he said they did despite being publicly owned not because of it, they ran the business as if it was private one and the private company who took on the contract are committed to returning more money over a longer period than they did.

Not a ringing endorsement of public ownership by someone who might actually know what they're talking about.

Remember the innovation of the high speed train under BR? The one where the unions kicked off and refused to run it unless they remodelled the cab to include a second drivers seat when it wasn't warranted meaning the driver was seated centrally anymore. That's the sort of vested interest you get with public ownership.

However he said they did despite being publicly owned not because of it, they ran the business as if it was private one and the private company who took on the contract are committed to returning more money over a longer period than they did.

That's the sort of vested interest you get with public ownership.

It's ok to be confused: if you lived in scandinavia it would look like a very 'vanilla' manifesto, firmly in the middle ground politically. Corbyn would be like the 'Hilary Benn' or even Ken Clark of parliament if he went to Finland tomorrow. We have one of the most RW press/media in Europe so what you are told from all corners is quite possibly at odds with your actual sense of right and wrong. Actually these are just like comparable and more popular policies all over the developed world (with the exception of the USA), not just with people who don't think they like Labour.

Very true. A lot of people will like the policies and would be better with them in place but they are constantly told by press, tory government, ignorant friends, Facebook etc,. that they won't stand up for all sorts of made up reasons.

If you like the polices (and more importantly the intent behind them to at least try and create a fairer society) then vote for them. They have set out how they will be paid for so people shouldn't worry about that as even most politicians don't really understand the real details on that if they were honest so as long as they have been validated by people who do understand then fine.

Remember, it's only OK to have publically owned infrastructure if it's a foreign government that owns it. We stupid British couldn't possibly do it as well as the famously efficient French.

Great point.

And their energy too!

I think it's a question of not wanting or wanting to make publicly owned stuff work. The Tories don't as it goes against their ideology so they run things into the ground and then blame unions and inefficiency. It's by design.

Who better to own a national enterprise than your own people? Why share the profits and benefits to the few? (Because again it's Tory ideology looking after its elite and short-termism.)

Not long ago the banks fowled up and guess what we moved some if it to part and full public ownership to make it work again. Then when it was working we move back to the few. Madness.

European Law and the political agenda requires France and others to divest their remaining public stakes in energy and transport. Thats one of the reasons Corbyn wanted out of the EU, so he can nationalise things.

@rone banks where "nationalised" to avoid widespread economic disruption and chaos.

Again I am reminded that those traditional English patriots Lynton Crosby and Rupert Murdoch might have the best slogans for attracting the people who haven't got the time or the inclination to read a manifesto properly, but the lefties have and always will have the best jokes.
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/labour-leaked-manifesto-1970s-stuck-tories-fox-hunting-jeremy-corbyn-theresa-may-a7730941.html ]Mark Steel on the policies of the 70's[/url]

@rone banks where "nationalised" to avoid widespread economic disruption and chaos.

I'm fine with that. It demonstrates the market is not necessarily the best way of operating a large sector.

jambalaya - Member
@julian I commuted up to London every day for 25 years fyi, an expensive and generally crap experience. A good friend was involved in the Clapham disaster (not hurt physically) and the vast majority of those recommendations where ignored by Labour and Tory governments. For whatever reason our railways are poor

Poor quality swerve. Is that last line like the 'many complex reasons' TM has but can't say for why nurses are using food banks? And how many of your 25 years commuting were under a nationalised BR? You're not that old: 12-15 tops? And no comment on sncf at all? It is possible to run a far better nationalised service with far more powerful unions than we have over here.

As much as the Labour Manifesto sounds like we'd all be having so much of a better life once it's implemented, sadly they haven't truly considered how it would be funded. It would end up Back to the 70s. And that was horrible.

I would be adversely affected tax-wise and would be one of a huge number of people changing my working pattern and the net result would be less income for HMRC. I wouldn't be avoiding tax, just not liable for so much. The whole thing would be awful. A flat rate of 25% across the board with a 10k personal allowance would raise more revenue and be fairer, with no get-outs.

Corbyn will sit alongside Farage in political history. Farage managed to transform national policy (like it or loathe it) as an outsider to the political elite. Corbyn as a lifetime politician will transform national politics through the break up of labour. A key flaw in Corbyns background is that the public has little time for career politicians as it's obvious they don't have any life experience. That's why his manifesto looks like a 11 year olds Xmas list. Mum and dad can't afford it and there'll be tears.

Through Labour's public and graphic disintegration their position is without challenge and I feel that's got to be a bad thing. Every government needs an effective opposition and ours won't for a very very long time to come.

European Law and the political agenda requires France and others to divest their remaining public stakes in energy and transport.

And no comment on sncf at all? It is possible to run a far better nationalised service with far more powerful unions than we have over here.

You are aware that SNCF is based around 50 year old infrastructure?

It was completely destroyed in WW2 and then rebuilt in the 1950's, like most of the European rail systems. Hence efficient routing, double decker trains etc.

We have something built by the Victorians.

I do agree that some kind of nationalised system would be a good idea, like how the East Coast line was run until recently. Sick of giving money to Branson and the other leeches.

Well if taking the trains is going to be free then I have no issue with it. Why would anyone?
Free education is a big winner in my book too. Still wouldn't vote for jizza but these policies are pretty ok so far.

Free?

Seemed to go down very well on QT last night.

mikertroid - Member
As much as the Labour Manifesto sounds like we'd all be having so much of a better life once it's implemented, sadly they haven't truly considered how it would be funded.

Except the IFS have said it's fully funded and the published manifesto will contain funding details.

It would end up Back to the 70s

🙄

Wearing flares and listening to Bread?

As much as the Labour Manifesto sounds like we'd all be having so much of a better life once it's implemented, sadly they haven't truly considered how it would be funded. It would end up Back to the 70s. And that was horrible.

Very true. Why stop there though? If we're time travelling then we should stick with Theresa marching us all the way back to the 1950's. I believe everything was a absolutely bally marvlous then, wasn't it? A truly golden age?

Better than back the Victims era under this shower of arrogant shite.
Slave labour. Check.
Poor dependant on charity. Check
Workhouses. Check (I've posted sources for the reintroduction many times)
No NHS? Work in progress.
Selling of all National assets? Work in progress.
Private "policing" been dun.

Seemed to go down very well on QT last night.

Yes, observed.

However it's how many times the rags can keep getting people to say 'back to the 70s' (with disregard to the oil crisis) that will stick .

The Tories have much better PR. There was also no equal to "Brexit" in terms of catchy phrases which I think helped win the campaign. 'Back to 70s' will have a similar affect.

The point is Labour are at least having a crack at shaping things. I can't see the Tories doing anything other than the same old negative austerity because we haven't got any money for anything unless it's money for something they believe in.

The whole thing would be awful. A flat rate of 25% across the board with a 10k personal allowance would raise more revenue and be fairer, with no get-outs

I wouldn't agree with that tax system and I'm a slightly higher earner - we have a good living I want to collectively help others which means tax take needs to move with income.

It's not just particulars of the rate it's how it's enforced. So why not keep with our tax system but just deal with the people that jump through hoops better?

I can't see the Tories doing anything other than the same old negative austerity because we haven't got any money for anything unless it's money for something they believe in.

Like further reductions in corporation tax? Abolishing capital gains tax? That type of thing?

I was quite pleasantly surprised by the labour manifesto, in that its full of actual policies. Bold ones too

I suspect the Tory manifesto will be about 2 sentences long, with some vague stuff about red, white and blue Brexit, or some such nonsense.

Because one thing is becoming abundantly clearer with ever 'Strong and Stable' day

Kim Jong May has plenty of policies she wants to implement. But theres no way on earth she's going to tell us what they are. Because if she told us what here actual plans are - using Brexit as a flimsy cover to tear up the post-war settlement, and do away with things (like the NHS) that we've all taken for granted for decades - then theres no way on earth she'd get elected. And she knows it!

I doubt the Tory manifesto will run to a side of A4. But what she's really planning to do....? Well thats a different matter entirely. And we sure the **** won't be hearing much about it. And certainly no detail

@rone, I think the accepted optimum rate is about 23%, I was just rounding up. A sliding tax rate as we have is 'interesting'. I don't begrudge paying taxes but when it actually pays to work less then there's something broken in the system.

@Lifer, they might have said so based on the assumption that swathes of people like me will continue to pay the tax they expect. That won't happen. I'll cut my hours. If it was ridiculously high tax, I'll look to work overseas when the kids leave home. I pay more than my fair share. I do charity and voluntary work and neither of my kids burden the state education system. These options do cost me but it's a choice I've made/had forced upon me by having kids with special eduacational needs. My employer provides my healthcare. I'm incredibly fortunate in those facts but there's a bit of give and take. Squeeze someone too hard and they'll go pop!

So, in my opinion as a voter, labour's plan isn't achievable. Everyone has their opinion and I'll wait until 9th of June when the results come in to see how the collective mind of the UK decide the policies and leadership stand up.

There were a series of tweets from @ComRes yesterday showing by and large that the public really like Labour's manifesto policies but when asked who they think has the most realistic and well thought through policies:

Tories: 51%
Labour: 32%

The state we're in. 😆

Meanwhile, Mummy's been on LBC lying about the EU again, and today will be in the NE talking about "patriotic" working class people.

I pay more than my fair share.

The problem being addressed through taxes is because you receive more than your fair share.

You will leave the country or reduce hours but majority won't. And if it was up to me I would be glad for selfish and greedy people to leave as it would be a better place.

[quote=kerley said]I pay more than my fair share.
The problem being addressed through taxes is because you receive more than your fair share.

Buy "you receive more than your fair share" do you mean salary ? And if so, what is the "fair share" ?

I would be adversely affected tax-wise and would be one of a huge number of people changing my working pattern and the net result would be less income for HMRC. I wouldn't be avoiding tax, just not liable for so much. The whole thing would be awful. A flat rate of 25% across the board with a 10k personal allowance would raise more revenue and be fairer, with no get-outs

i think you have confused better for you and the wealthy and fairer
It would also reduce the total tax take whilst passing the burden to the less well off

You are a Tory I assume.- happy to avoid tax and happy to say it fairer to make the poorer than you pay more whilst you save.

@kerley

Sorry, can you explain. What problem is being addressed?

@junkyard if you want to remove the personal tax allowance in toto, be my guest. Just suggesting an option to reduce burden on low incomes.

Yes I vote Tory. They don't quite do it for me but they're the least worst option in my opinion. And that's just it. We're all entitled to opinions. We're not robots and therefore every individual has differing needs and wants.

Just suggesting an option to reduce burden on low incomes.

You suggested a TFA of £10k. You're aware of what it is at present?

You will leave the country or reduce hours but majority won't

I really wouldn't bet on that.
Reducing hours to avoid higher rate taxes seems a very sensible choice for anyone. Better work/life balance without being penalised excessively for doing well for yourself.
Put it this way - would you work overtime for half your normal hourly rate?

What a lot of people seem to forget is that the better off are already paying vastly more. Even with a flat rate 25% income tax, someone earning 100K would be contributing 4x more than someone earning 25K.

Most people that earn big money work really hard for it, as if they didn't theres a queue of people behind them ready to take their jobs. Why shouldn't hard work be rewarded?

It would end up Back to the 70s. And that was horrible.

You mean the Heath government and the 3-day week ?

You will leave the country or reduce hours but majority won't

I'm seriously considering emigration with my family if brexit goes as badly as I fear it will.

I'm am not alone in my peer group.

Just suggesting an option to reduce burden on low incomes.

if this was your aim then it was a spectacularly bad attempt at achieving it as you just increased the burden on them and ONLY reduced it for those earning over 45 k.
Only the[very??] well off pay less with your plan.
0-11.5=0%
11,501-45 k = 20% tax rate currently

We're all entitled to opinions.

You cannot really have an opinion on facts and the fact is your plan makes the poor pay more and the well off pay less whilst reducing the tax take
If it really was an attempt to help the poor it was a very bad way to do it.

DD /junkyard yes you can keep the allowance as it is, I was being very rough in my figures as I'm on my phone! Argument still valid.

The point is if I went 50% part time and did 25% consultancy I'd earn more gross than I do now, pay WAY less tax and many others would do the same. A 25% rate across the board (you'd have to look at how that's workable for self employed etc) with carefully planned allowances do not tonne open to abuse would actually make the wealthy pay more.....

Why shouldn't hard work be rewarded?

Thats a good question, next time I see Mrs Strong and Stable I'll ask her about her working teachers and nurses.

The earlier comment about railways in continental Europe being based on newer infrastructure due to WW2 is quite far off the mark.

The UK network's inferiority is due to rationalisation from 1951-mid 70s (inc. Beeching) and a lack of appetite to invest in the railways post-1980s.

That constraint is added to by the simply perverse post-1990s privatisation set-up; whereby a train operating company has almost zero incentive to add passenger capacity to the rolling stock.

The point is if I went 50% part time and did 25% consultancy I'd earn more gross than I do now, pay WAY less tax and many others would do the same

Genuine question - Can you please explain how?

Anyway, my Labour-loving STW friends/komrades, Politics, religion and money are all conversation topics that are a challenge!!

I'll not persuade you, you won't persuade me. We'll keep sharing the trails and nowt will change in the grand scheme of things.

Time to go ride! Adios!

DD /junkyard yes you can keep the allowance as it is, I was being very rough in my figures as I'm on my phone! Argument still valid.

As JY points out, you don't even bloody know what the TFA is at present. So, yeah, everyone has their opinion, and hey, some people even base it on facts.