Current Affairs Labour and Anti Semitism.......

[Bruce Wayne]

There are areas in which a Corbyn government really could do that - the railways are the most notorious example, but also some PFI schemes (which even Boris managed to do when Metronet went under) and some sectors of the MoD (defence housing especially, which is a scandal that noone appears to want to know about).

I guess that's what I'm not getting. If we take the railway example, at the moment running costs are split between the operator and a government subsidy, so even if each line is only nationalised when the contract runs out, the government will still have to fund 100% of each line rather than x%. It's not revenue neutral is it? I mean in 16/17, the railways cost £19.5bn to run, of which operators picked up the tab for nearly £11bn. So unless investment drops, if the network is nationalised, the government will have to find £11bn per year from somewhere.

Or am I missing something?

 

[abelard]

I guess that's what I'm not getting. If we take the railway example, at the moment running costs are split between the operator and a government subsidy, so even if each line is only nationalised when the contract runs out, the government will still have to fund 100% of each line rather than x%. It's not revenue neutral is it? I mean in 16/17, the railways cost £19.5bn to run, of which operators picked up the tab for nearly £11bn. So unless investment drops, if the network is nationalised, the government will have to find £11bn per year from somewhere.

Or am I missing something?

Tax Haven Cash Rising, Now Equal To At Least 10% Of World GDP

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrap...ual-to-at-least-10-of-world-gdp/#4a9589ea70d6

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Tax Haven Cash Rising, Now Equal To At Least 10% Of World GDP

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrap...ual-to-at-least-10-of-world-gdp/#4a9589ea70d6

So he plans to tax more so that he can spend more?

 

[abelard]

So he plans to tax more so that he can spend more?

Think he's been pretty clear about that, no?

"In its election manifesto, Labour proposed a new 45% tax band on those earning more than £80,000 and a 50% rate for those on more than £123,000."

Has the backing of those naive millennial Trotskyists at the IMF too:

 

[tsubaki]

I guess that's what I'm not getting. If we take the railway example, at the moment running costs are split between the operator and a government subsidy, so even if each line is only nationalised when the contract runs out, the government will still have to fund 100% of each line rather than x%. It's not revenue neutral is it? I mean in 16/17, the railways cost £19.5bn to run, of which operators picked up the tab for nearly £11bn. So unless investment drops, if the network is nationalised, the government will have to find £11bn per year from somewhere.

Or am I missing something?

Yes - the revenue that the operator gets as a result of running the services, rents from property etc, as well as things like open access fees (which would be required for renationalization under current EU rules). Indeed one of the main reasons why the Tories are so determined to force through the sale of Network Rail's commercial property business (edit: alternative story here) is that it will make them that much less profitable if ever renationalized.

 

[Number_25]

Whilst I appreciate what you're doing @abelard, I think it's important to understand how the Labour Party are attempting to resolve several socioeconomic issues that go far beyond the 4/5 year election cycle.

 

[abelard]

Whilst I appreciate what you're doing @abelard, I think it's important to understand how the Labour Party are attempting to resolve several socioeconomic issues that go far beyond the 4/5 year election cycle.

Not sure how I've not understood that...

 

[Number_25]

Not sure how I've not understood that...

Help Bruce understand, I'm on a mobile, on a crappy VPN, stood up on a train right now, quite difficult to communicate effectively.

 

[peteblue]

You're a smart dude, I'm fairly certain I don't have to explain what investment is.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Help Bruce understand, I'm on a mobile, on a crappy VPN, stood up on a train right now, quite difficult to communicate effectively.

I get that he has big plans, but I was confused by your suggestion that he could do all of those things without spending hugely to do so. I was merely pointing out that government largesse isn't a guarantee that things will improve, as France so ably demonstrate.

 

[peteblue]

Meanwhile Margaret Hodge seems to have Corbyn by the goolies........and quite rightly.....

 

[peteblue]

Help Bruce understand, I'm on a mobile, on a crappy VPN, stood up on a train right now, quite difficult to communicate effectively.

Hahahaha.......that’ll be Corbyn’s excuse as well........

 

[Number_25]

Meanwhile Margaret Hodge seems to have Corbyn by the goolies........and quite rightly.....

Give me one example of anti-Semitism that isn't covered by Labour's implementation?

 

[neil999]

Meanwhile Margaret Hodge seems to have Corbyn by the goolies........and quite rightly.....

i have a slight feeling that you are more interested in the damage anti-semitism can do to the labour party than you are of stopping anti-semitism...

 

[peteblue]

Give me one example of anti-Semitism that isn't covered by Labour's implementation?

“In the Labour code it is no longer likely to be antisemitic “to accuse Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations”. The code simply says this is “wrong”, as if imprecise or uncivil language is the problem, rather than the prevalence of antisemitic attitudes. Yet this charge, that Jews cannot be trusted or must always be suspected of having a hidden agenda, is central to the old-fashioned, rightwing antisemitism that the Labour party claims to oppose.”

“Similarly, the IHRA definition says it is antisemitic to compare Israel to Nazi Germany, but Labour’s code says this is only the case if there is “evidence of antisemitic intent”: a caveat it attaches to all “contentious views” relating to Israel. Nor does Labour’s code agree with IHRA that it is antisemitic to argue that the very idea of a state for the Jewish people is a “racist endeavour”.
Thus in today’s Labour party, it is possible to argue that Israel is a Nazi-like state that should be wiped from the map, and that any Jews who say otherwise are probably paid by Israel to do so, and not be hauled up for antisemitism. You may be told that your language is insensitive or impolite and asked to go on an education course, but your anti-racist reputation will remain intact.”

There you go.......