Current Affairs The Labour Party

[Bruce Wayne]

When people like me support Corbyn, it's very little to do with the man himself and everything to do with anti austerity. As a teacher myself, I saw the damage this government has done on a daily basis before I moved abroad. The last thing I want to see is the David Milaband's and Chris Leslie's seize control of the Labour Party again so they can turn it into their Tory lite sideshow.

When it comes down to it, the people voted to leave, they are the ones who enabled Brexit. Who wants to be the politician that subverts democracy by crusading to overturn the vote? I was never Lexit but it would be difficult for me personally to espouse all of the virtues of the E.U given what they have done to countries like Greece. You only have to wander around the streets of Athens to grasp the sentiment towards the organisation there.

If there was another vote, I would vote to remain but I think this has to be the last option. Another referendum would be poison for the country. Even then, there is no guarantee remain would win. That's the problem with democracy, you don't always get the result you want.

As austerity is ostensibly trying to tie government spending to government income (which still hasn't happened, despite a prolonged period of economic growth and 'austerity policies'), how would Labour propose to end it? Do they have policies for removing the deficit that haven't been considered, or are they not bothered about the deficit and will get out the credit card/printing press?

 

[JimmyJeffers]

The one having Rafael meltdowns are those that are still banging the Corbyn drum. It’s actually amazing the amount of people I know that were fully on the band wagon last year that have actually said similar to that Rowling thread (albeit without the anti semitism) that really, he isn’t the man for the job. Even Twitter is nowhere near the hotbed of support for him it once was.

To say that only Corbyn gets diatribes is absolute cherry picking. The entire political system is rightly getting a kicking by the media at present because they are beyond useless. Corbyn is getting pelted because he’s showing exactly how poor of a politician he is. He’s helping enable Brexit and seemingly has no idea on how to use pressure to change the governments course.

I like Corbyn. Seems like a nice lad

 

[dannyboy]

As austerity is ostensibly trying to tie government spending to government income (which still hasn't happened, despite a prolonged period of economic growth and 'austerity policies'), how would Labour propose to end it? Do they have policies for removing the deficit that haven't been considered, or are they not bothered about the deficit and will get out the credit card/printing press?

Borrow money to invest and clamp down on tax evasion. Redress the balance in a society in which homeless people are dying on the streets and child are going hungry in school.

The system is broken. There is no way in a country where a woman can deliver her Christmas message next to a gold piano can we have children starving and living in temporary accommodation. The Tories and neo liberal economics have had their chance to address this over the last 30 years, inequality has gotten worse and finally what they believed to be the established consensus is being challenged.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Borrow money to invest and clamp down on tax evasion. Redress the balance in a society in which homeless people are dying on the streets and child are going hungry in school.

The system is broken. There is no way in a country where a woman can deliver her Christmas message next to a gold piano can we have children starving and living in temporary accommodation. The Tories and neo liberal economics have had their chance to address this over the last 30 years, inequality has gotten worse and finally what they believed to be the established consensus is being challenged.

The deficit in 2015/2016 was £69bn, so the government is already spending far more than it brings in via taxation. Is that money being wasted on things or does the government not tax enough?

As a reminder, the Labour manifesto pledged not to raise any form of tax for households earning less than £80k a year and they also pledged to wipe out the deficit by 2022. Oh, and they also pledged to reduce the government debt by then as well, so presumably would have run a surplus in that time. So even if they did nothing extra and maintained government policies as they are today, they'd need to find £70bn in extra tax revenue to meet their own pledge, with even more required to rebalance the economy and buy back various industries.

 

[dannyboy]

The deficit in 2015/2016 was £69bn, so the government is already spending far more than it brings in via taxation. Is that money being wasted on things or does the government not tax enough?

You could never say money spent on health, education and pensions is wasted. Could it be administered in a more cost effective manner? Probably but I guess those savings would a drop in the ocean in relative terms.

20% of the people who live in England are in poverty. It's a staggering statistic. I think money needs to be invested into these communities and education as quickly as possible to stop the situation becoming worse. Will that require increased taxation? Probably. Because the idea that the money will 'trickle down' from the top into an area like Stockbridge Village is a pipe dream.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

You could never say money spent on health, education and pensions is wasted. Could it be administered in a more cost effective manner? Probably but I guess those savings would a drop in the ocean in relative terms.

20% of the people who live in England are in poverty. It's a staggering statistic. I think money needs to be invested into these communities and education as quickly as possible to stop the situation becoming worse. Will that require increased taxation? Probably. Because the idea that the money will 'trickle down' from the top into an area like Stockbridge Village is a pipe dream.

It's staggering that people haven't looked at what that statistic defines. This is the official definition used by the Social Metrics Commission when coming up with their 20% figure:

"The Commission views poverty as being the situation where a person’s available material resources are insufficient to adequately meet their immediate material needs."

When you consider that they don't regard debt as 'material resources' then the government itself would be in poverty, which I suspect most right minded folk would say it's very much not.

 

[dannyboy]

It's staggering that people haven't looked at what that statistic defines. This is the official definition used by the Social Metrics Commission when coming up with their 20% figure:

"The Commission views poverty as being the situation where a person’s available material resources are insufficient to adequately meet their immediate material needs."

When you consider that they don't regard debt as 'material resources' then the government itself would be in poverty, which I suspect most right minded folk would say it's very much not.

Statistics aside, I've lived the poverty and watched on a daily basis children come to school hungry. Alan Sugar and his ilk can call teachers and nurses like me jealous Marxists all he wants if it makes him feel better but we live in a country where it doesn't have to be that way.

I just don't understand why even in a capitalist system a minority can win so big at the expense of others who are struggling to survive. Surely a more balanced and equal society is in the interests of everyone. Instead we have a government that has no interest in achieving that. They've implemented austerity, which by its nature targets the weakest and most vulnerable. Rather that than asking their friends to pay more so schools can afford pencils.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Statistics aside, I've lived the poverty and watched on a daily basis children come to school hungry. Alan Sugar and his ilk can call teachers and nurses like me jealous Marxists all he wants if it makes him feel better but we live in a country where it doesn't have to be that way.

I just don't understand why even in a capitalist system a minority can win so big at the expense of others who are struggling to survive. Surely a more balanced and equal society is in the interests of everyone. Instead we have a government that has no interest in achieving that. They've implemented austerity, which by its nature targets the weakest and most vulnerable. Rather that than asking their friends to pay more so schools can afford pencils.

It's important that we understand the problem before attempting to fix it though. It's sadly all too easy (and common) to throw around placade like statements that might make the wielder feel better but don't really strive to change things.

The global economy that we have has undoubtedly made the dividends from winning much greater as you have a much bigger market to win in. It has also increased competition for labour, which if you aren't highly skilled can be a problem. It saddens me when this is used as an example of the poor being targeted, when globally, it has lifted more people out of poverty than mankind has ever seen before.

It's perhaps also worth remembering that the economic definition of austerity is a reduction in the deficit, so if Labour really did plan to balance the books in their 2017 manifesto, then they too would have had to deliver austerity policies. Under that scenario, the only difference between Labour and the Tories would be which areas would receive money, ergo austerity in itself cannot be automatically bad unless you also think the Labour manifesto was bad.

It's also important to remember that the very fundamentals of Keynesian economics is that government stimulus is only really valuable when the economy is declining. This obviously happened in 2008 and 2009, but in every year since then the economy has grown. With whatever Brexit throws at us on the horizon, you'd think the last few years would have been the best time to get the government finances in order, if any, yet the deficit is still enormous.

That Labour pledged to both deliver Brexit, nationalise a bunch of industries AND secure a budget surplus by 2022 causes me to scratch my chin, especially as they didn't make any mention of addressing the biggest structural drain on public finances, which is the ageing population who not only draw ever larger pensions, but require ever larger expenditure via the NHS. Any mention of raising the retirement age to pay for this was sadly lacking however. It all creates the impression of people buying their Christmas presents on the never never.

 

[dannyboy]

It's important that we understand the problem before attempting to fix it though. It's sadly all too easy (and common) to throw around placade like statements that might make the wielder feel better but don't really strive to change things.

The global economy that we have has undoubtedly made the dividends from winning much greater as you have a much bigger market to win in. It has also increased competition for labour, which if you aren't highly skilled can be a problem. It saddens me when this is used as an example of the poor being targeted, when globally, it has lifted more people out of poverty than mankind has ever seen before.

It's perhaps also worth remembering that the economic definition of austerity is a reduction in the deficit, so if Labour really did plan to balance the books in their 2017 manifesto, then they too would have had to deliver austerity policies. Under that scenario, the only difference between Labour and the Tories would be which areas would receive money, ergo austerity in itself cannot be automatically bad unless you also think the Labour manifesto was bad.

It's also important to remember that the very fundamentals of Keynesian economics is that government stimulus is only really valuable when the economy is declining. This obviously happened in 2008 and 2009, but in every year since then the economy has grown. With whatever Brexit throws at us on the horizon, you'd think the last few years would have been the best time to get the government finances in order, if any, yet the deficit is still enormous.

That Labour pledged to both deliver Brexit, nationalise a bunch of industries AND secure a budget surplus by 2022 causes me to scratch my chin, especially as they didn't make any mention of addressing the biggest structural drain on public finances, which is the ageing population who not only draw ever larger pensions, but require ever larger expenditure via the NHS. Any mention of raising the retirement age to pay for this was sadly lacking however. It all creates the impression of people buying their Christmas presents on the never never.

I would never argue that capitalism has been the most efficient system in boosting living standards. My issue is the inequality that it inspires. In my eyes it simply isn´t sustainable that so few own so much whilst so many struggle. The most worrying aspect is that this gap continues to spiral out of control. At sometime there will come a breaking point and I think it would be far better for advocates of the capitalist system to address the issue, refining the system rather than wait for the fallout that could potentially ensue when people say enough is enough.

Inequality is just one of the issues capitalism must address in the very near future. It´s clear the win at all costs mantra is destroying the planet and we are now reaching the point environmental damage could become irreparable. We are still very much in the early days of the development of economies such as India whose greenhouse emissions will only continue to rocket. I don´t know what can be done to tell the middle class on the sub continent that you can´t have your improved standard of living whilst everyone else in the west continues to do so.

Then there is also the issue of the rise in technology. How many jobs are we potentially going to lose over the next 25 years? What to do with these people who are seemingly surplus to requirements in a capitalist world where technology takes over the role of labour?

With regards to austerity, nothing will ever convince me that it wasn´t an ideological attack from Osborne on those who are most vulnerable. There are many commentators such as Fraser Nelson who will tell you that we haven´t even experienced austerity, so I ask what was the point of all the cuts that it cannot be argued impacted upon the poor more than any other social group? It also makes me think, where would we be as a society if we actually did experience ´true´ austerity?

I apologise if I have become sidetracked on the issue. Christmas = lots of time off and plenty of thinking out loud on forums.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I would never argue that capitalism has been the most efficient system in boosting living standards. My issue is the inequality that it inspires. In my eyes it simply isn´t sustainable that so few own so much whilst so many struggle. The most worrying aspect is that this gap continues to spiral out of control. At sometime there will come a breaking point and I think it would be far better for advocates of the capitalist system to address the issue, refining the system rather than wait for the fallout that could potentially ensue when people say enough is enough.

Inequality in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's a few years old, but in 2016 for instance, the average salary of a player in League 2 was around £40,000 a year, compared to around £2 million for a PL player. By a lot of the definitions of poverty used at the moment, those league 2 players are living in poverty, whilst the 50 multiple between them and the PL player is probably higher than most would regard as a fair and equal society. What's more, I suspect those figures are even worse now as pay in the PL has risen so much. Should we feel sorry for the league 2 player on nearly twice the average salary in the UK? Quite probably not, so I'm always wary of people using relative figures to determine poverty when absolute is a more meaningful figure.

I do wonder at times if there isn't an element of the EU argument at play here. For years, Tories have bashed the EU, and to a lesser extent immigrants, because it suited their narrative to do so. With Labour not really sticking up for them either, we arrived at a situation where very few people really understood how valuable the EU is, and it's resulted in the horrible mess we find ourselves in at the moment.

When politicians have an incentive to play hard and fast with the facts and make out that circumstances are much worse than they really are, it doesn't help the public make informed decisions. Governments have done this for ever, with the opposition always claiming that ever ill in society is down to the incumbent, and would easily be fixed when they're in office, which of course it never is and the roles are reversed. I sense a bit of that with Labour, as they have to present the economy as being in a state, despite Britain not really doing too badly when compared with other European countries. The fact that there are so many different approaches in operation in Europe with broadly similar outcomes suggests that policies aren't the silver bullet that many politicians claim them to be.

Inequality is just one of the issues capitalism must address in the very near future. It´s clear the win at all costs mantra is destroying the planet and we are now reaching the point environmental damage could become irreparable. We are still very much in the early days of the development of economies such as India whose greenhouse emissions will only continue to rocket. I don´t know what can be done to tell the middle class on the sub continent that you can´t have your improved standard of living whilst everyone else in the west continues to do so.

The environment is a funny one. I'm doing some work with INSEAD at the moment around plastics, and with the beverage industry in particular. There are all manner of consortia with pretty much every name you can think of signed up to them from private and public sectors, yet very little has really come out of these groups (yet). There's no real doubt that there is a broad agreement that things need to change, but actually achieving that change is not straightforward. You could, of course, argue that there is a large dollop of greenwashing going on, and there will always be an element of PR to these things, but equally in these populist "change is oh so easy" times, it would be quite sobering to accept that most attempts to change fail, and it's actually very difficult.

Then there is also the issue of the rise in technology. How many jobs are we potentially going to lose over the next 25 years? What to do with these people who are seemingly surplus to requirements in a capitalist world where technology takes over the role of labour?

I think the predictions of x% of jobs being automated in the near future are massively over-stated, and they present a heavily over-simplified view of things, both in terms of the state of technology today, and the impact of technology on work. What we can predict, based upon previous eras, is that whenever jobs return after a period of either economic or technological disruption, they are nearly always higher skilled than the jobs that were lost. It kinda underlines the imperative of doing a whole lot better at supporting adult education than we do today. This shouldn't just be a case of greater provision, although that's important, but also looking at the various cultural and social factors that lock people out of training at the moment. Nothing would please me more than if Britain developed a culture that valued education and learning. We've seen a groundswell of patriotism around the Brexit vote, and whilst it's not my cup of tea at all, if that patriotism was channelled along the lines of the Polish Positivism era of Marie Curie then that would be no bad thing, although I don't hold out much hope to be honest.

With regards to austerity, nothing will ever convince me that it wasn´t an ideological attack from Osborne on those who are most vulnerable. There are many commentators such as Fraser Nelson who will tell you that we haven´t even experienced austerity, so I ask what was the point of all the cuts that it cannot be argued impacted upon the poor more than any other social group? It also makes me think, where would we be as a society if we actually did experience ´true´ austerity?

I apologise if I have become sidetracked on the issue. Christmas = lots of time off and plenty of thinking out loud on forums.

You perhaps won't be too surprised to hear me disagree on that. Awful people though the Tories are in many ways, I'm not sure even they are 'that' awful. I suspect the reality is that during any period of upheaval it is those with lower skills and various other things that make them vulnerable that suffer the most. I'm fairly sure that the upheaval caused by Brexit will have similar repercussions. That's the nature of being vulnerable I guess. I suspect Universal Credit is the same. Not a deliberate attack on various people so much as a botched policy implementation that has tipped many people (who don't need much to be tipped) over the edge.

Always up for thinking out loud on forums though, and hope you and yours had a nice and relaxing Christmas

 

[dannyboy]

Inequality in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's a few years old, but in 2016 for instance, the average salary of a player in League 2 was around £40,000 a year, compared to around £2 million for a PL player. By a lot of the definitions of poverty used at the moment, those league 2 players are living in poverty, whilst the 50 multiple between them and the PL player is probably higher than most would regard as a fair and equal society. What's more, I suspect those figures are even worse now as pay in the PL has risen so much. Should we feel sorry for the league 2 player on nearly twice the average salary in the UK? Quite probably not, so I'm always wary of people using relative figures to determine poverty when absolute is a more meaningful figure.

I do wonder at times if there isn't an element of the EU argument at play here. For years, Tories have bashed the EU, and to a lesser extent immigrants, because it suited their narrative to do so. With Labour not really sticking up for them either, we arrived at a situation where very few people really understood how valuable the EU is, and it's resulted in the horrible mess we find ourselves in at the moment.

When politicians have an incentive to play hard and fast with the facts and make out that circumstances are much worse than they really are, it doesn't help the public make informed decisions. Governments have done this for ever, with the opposition always claiming that ever ill in society is down to the incumbent, and would easily be fixed when they're in office, which of course it never is and the roles are reversed. I sense a bit of that with Labour, as they have to present the economy as being in a state, despite Britain not really doing too badly when compared with other European countries. The fact that there are so many different approaches in operation in Europe with broadly similar outcomes suggests that policies aren't the silver bullet that many politicians claim them to be.



The environment is a funny one. I'm doing some work with INSEAD at the moment around plastics, and with the beverage industry in particular. There are all manner of consortia with pretty much every name you can think of signed up to them from private and public sectors, yet very little has really come out of these groups (yet). There's no real doubt that there is a broad agreement that things need to change, but actually achieving that change is not straightforward. You could, of course, argue that there is a large dollop of greenwashing going on, and there will always be an element of PR to these things, but equally in these populist "change is oh so easy" times, it would be quite sobering to accept that most attempts to change fail, and it's actually very difficult.



I think the predictions of x% of jobs being automated in the near future are massively over-stated, and they present a heavily over-simplified view of things, both in terms of the state of technology today, and the impact of technology on work. What we can predict, based upon previous eras, is that whenever jobs return after a period of either economic or technological disruption, they are nearly always higher skilled than the jobs that were lost. It kinda underlines the imperative of doing a whole lot better at supporting adult education than we do today. This shouldn't just be a case of greater provision, although that's important, but also looking at the various cultural and social factors that lock people out of training at the moment. Nothing would please me more than if Britain developed a culture that valued education and learning. We've seen a groundswell of patriotism around the Brexit vote, and whilst it's not my cup of tea at all, if that patriotism was channelled along the lines of the Polish Positivism era of Marie Curie then that would be no bad thing, although I don't hold out much hope to be honest.



You perhaps won't be too surprised to hear me disagree on that. Awful people though the Tories are in many ways, I'm not sure even they are 'that' awful. I suspect the reality is that during any period of upheaval it is those with lower skills and various other things that make them vulnerable that suffer the most. I'm fairly sure that the upheaval caused by Brexit will have similar repercussions. That's the nature of being vulnerable I guess. I suspect Universal Credit is the same. Not a deliberate attack on various people so much as a botched policy implementation that has tipped many people (who don't need much to be tipped) over the edge.

Always up for thinking out loud on forums though, and hope you and yours had a nice and relaxing Christmas

You too, mate. It´s always good to venture outside the bubble. New Year´s resolution of mine.

 

[tsubaki]

As austerity is ostensibly trying to tie government spending to government income (which still hasn't happened, despite a prolonged period of economic growth and 'austerity policies'), how would Labour propose to end it? Do they have policies for removing the deficit that haven't been considered, or are they not bothered about the deficit and will get out the credit card/printing press?

Austerity as the Coalition / this Government have implemented it has missed huge swathes out of the public finances though.

They haven’t touched PFI, barely touched renegotiating existing deals (like defence housing) and have actively opposed cheaper solutions if they are nationalised (for example the farce on the East Coast mainline, but on a much greater level council house building).

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Austerity as the Coalition / this Government have implemented it has missed huge swathes out of the public finances though.

They haven’t touched PFI, barely touched renegotiating existing deals (like defence housing) and have actively opposed cheaper solutions if they are nationalised (for example the farce on the East Coast mainline, but on a much greater level council house building).

I'm not trying to defend the government as they've been universally hopeless, merely pointing out that if Labour kept to their manifesto, they too would have been implementing austerity. To suggest otherwise is being rather disingenuous.

 

[tsubaki]

I'm not trying to defend the government as they've been universally hopeless, merely pointing out that if Labour kept to their manifesto, they too would have been implementing austerity. To suggest otherwise is being rather disingenuous.

If you define austerity as behaving responsibly, then yes.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

If you define austerity as behaving responsibly, then yes.

No, I define it as all economists do, which is reducing the deficit. Perhaps half the problem is people making up definitions to suit themselves.