Current Affairs The Labour Party

[dannyboy]

they won that much because people are territorial. We all know there’s seats that won’t even be contested. And everyone knows he won’t get close to 40% in a new election, he gets 20% and he can call himself lucky

and it’s the bullies in momentum which are propping him up. The bunch of Marxists

Haha I'm in Momentum and I'm definitely not a Marxist. Who have we been bullying?

Meh, we got told the Labour Party would become extinct at the last election, yet here we are....

 

[abelard]

The 2017 manifesto pledged to balance the budget. It was an austerity manifesto.

Balanced budgets = austerity? Where did you come up with that? That's a very... unique definition.

Unless you earn 50k a year. Then you're actually only taking home £30k

Labour will not increase taxes on anyone who earns less than £80k/year.

I am not sure you understand how tax brackets work. Nobody is going to have to pay 52% of their income in taxes. Even if 52% is the top rate (I'm not sure where you found that...), it would only apply on income earned above the £80k threshold.

oh I totally get that, I’m in the 40% bracket and if Labour get their way it’ll hit me hard. I pay my mortgage, insurance, car, food etc etc and I don’t live with my bird so it’s all on me. I have enough left over to put in savings and spend a small bit on myself each month. But if I get taxed more I’ll naturally cut back on unnecessary expenditure which will then have an impact on business. Many will be the same

Do you earn more than £80k a year? If not, than your tax rate will not change.

As for the 'where is the money going to come from'? question, which is perfectly legitimate, Labour will in addition to raising taxes on income earned above the first £80k, also increase inheritance taxes (which apply only to bequeathments above £325k), and restore corporate taxes to what they were before 2010.

The UK currently has the lowest corporate tax rate of any major industrialised country; even after restoring the 2010 rate, corporate tax levels would still be comparable to Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, and lower than France, Germany, Belgium, New Zealand, Japan, and Australia.

Labour will also (at least as per the 2017 manifesto) borrow money to invest in infrastructure. And because I can spot some of your hackles raising from miles away, it is worth comparing what the financial world tells us (we can't afford schools and hospitals anymore) with what they tell themselves (we can't make any money loaning to governments because interest rates are so low compared to inflation that they are actually earning money by borrowing from us)

From just this morning: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...-if-history-of-debt-is-any-guide?srnd=opinion

...Real 10-year yields recently went negative in the U.S. and are barely positive at present, while they are negative in much of the rest of the developed world. Negative real yields did happen in the aftermath of the war, but not persistently. In general, increasing inflation has in the past eased the pain of financial repression. As is well known, there are no great signs of returning inflation at present. If the markets are right, we are at the beginning of the longest period of sustained negative real yields in history. That suggests a significant opportunity for any government with financing needs.

With financial repression a virtual given, the scene is set for governments to spend money. The Deutsche Bank team suggests they might even be able to launch “zero coupon perpetuals” allowing them to borrow without promising a coupon or a repayment date.

Just the other day, we had Christine Lagarde literally begging Eurozone governments to start spending all the money they ECB has spent the last ten years printing, so that European economies can start growing again and we can have sane interest rates so that pension funds can earn enough to allow us to retire: https://www.ft.com/content/0ff70e24-cef8-11e9-99a4-b5ded7a7fe3f

In the UK though, it's as though basic facts on finance and fiscal policy don't exist. The level of hysteria and emotion and misinformation on here is something else.

Does nobody bother to check whether what they overhear online is actually true anymore?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Labour will be investing in all those things you mentioned and rightly so. I've worked in a school where the area had a fair amount of the people you described. The problem I think so many had was a lack of self belief or confidence they had the skills to hold down a job. A lot of them just weren't equipped to cope in a working environment. There are a lot of teachers doing great work in places like that but they need more help. I hope whoever wins the next election really tries to invest ideas/time/money in these forgotten areas because the culture does need changing.

So we've had nearly 80 years of free state schooling for all, and still have a situation whereby people leave school without the skills and mindset to enter the workforce? And the answer to that problem is to ban private schools as that will help and make all schools like the sector that by your own words seems to be failing a large chunk of society.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

At least you can be happy that spending on prisons is down because there's nobody in there?

The idea a decent welfare system turns us all into feckless layabouts sounds a bit Victorian to me. I just think it's good to have a decent safety net for those who fall on hard times. A minority abuse it but the majority don't. You know that most of the people who claim benefits are actually in work?

Does it work? https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/09500179922118042 for instance highlights how just 25% of former miners had full-time jobs 10 years after the mines shut down. That's appalling, and happened in communities that are Labour strongholds. Surely the safety net should be more akin to a trampoline that helps people get back onto their feet than a web that ensnares them for the rest of their lives?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Balanced budgets = austerity? Where did you come up with that? That's a very... unique definition.

Austerity is defined as raising more in taxes than the government spend (ie having a budget surplus if you like). For the government to reduce the budget deficits we currently have and therefore balance it by the end of the parliament, as Labour pledged to do, then it logically must have a number of years where it spends less than it raises, ergo it's an austerity budget.

Austerity is a political-economic term referring to policies that aim to reduce government budget deficits through spending cuts, tax increases, or a combination of both.

Austerity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's a bit concerning that so many people seem to bandy about the term without seeming to understand what it means. It must be quite depressing to mindlessly parrot what you're told rather than actually think about things.

 

[abelard]

Austerity is defined as raising more in taxes than the government spend (ie having a budget surplus if you like). For the government to reduce the budget deficits we currently have and therefore balance it by the end of the parliament, as Labour pledged to do, then it logically must have a number of years where it spends less than it raises, ergo it's an austerity budget.

Austerity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's a bit concerning that so many people seem to bandy about the term without seeming to understand what it means. It must be quite depressing to mindlessly parrot what you're told rather than actually think about things.

Well, by that definition, neither Labour nor the Tory-Lib Dems practiced austerity, because the Tory-Lib Dems lowered taxes on corporations and the rich, and gutted funding for schools, the NHS, police and prisons, and especially local councils to pay for it. Whereas Labour will reinvest in education, health, infrastructure and social wellbeing funded partly by restoring tax rates.

According to your definition, recent policy has hinged not on austerity, but on whether wealth should be transferred from the public to the rich (Tories & Lib Dems) or vice versa (Labour).

Of course, what the term actually means in common practice (from Google) is 'difficult economic conditions created by government measures to reduce public expenditure'. The Tories and Lib Dems imposed the former (in the midst of a historic recession). Granted, they were not especially concerned about the latter, or else they would have raised taxes rather than lowering them, as your definition suggests.

And what Labour pledged in 2017 was to reverse the 'difficult economic conditions created by government measures' by increasing public expendure - so, clearly not in any sense an austerity platform, save for the most tendentious and pedantic applications of the term.

 

[dannyboy]

So we've had nearly 80 years of free state schooling for all, and still have a situation whereby people leave school without the skills and mindset to enter the workforce? And the answer to that problem is to ban private schools as that will help and make all schools like the sector that by your own words seems to be failing a large chunk of society.

Think it´s pretty harsh you claim it´s the education system failing a large chunk of society when we´ve got children´s whose families are relying on food banks. So many of these children are raised in overcrowded housing and arrive at school with a limited vocabulary compared to their more affluent peers. We had 4 children in the reception class in my last school turn up in nappies for example. This is at a time when school budgets are being slashed and you´ve got some schools not being able to open on Friday afternoons to save money.

Maybe the public sector is failing these children but if you set something up to fail so badly are you honestly surprised? Independent schools might get brilliant results but it´s down to the benefit of smaller class sizes, less disruptive behaviour and outstanding facilities/opportunities. Another example is that we organised a trip to London with my last school. Out of the class of 23, 7 couldn´t afford to go. Pretty heartbreaking for those kids to watch their friends go off and experience something like that whilst they stay at school.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Well, by that definition, neither Labour nor the Tory-Lib Dems practiced austerity, because the Tory-Lib Dems lowered taxes on corporations and the rich, and gutted funding for schools, the NHS, police and prisons, and especially local councils to pay for it. Whereas Labour will reinvest in education, health, infrastructure and social wellbeing funded partly by restoring tax rates.

According to your definition, recent policy has hinged not on austerity, but on whether wealth should be transferred from the public to the rich (Tories & Lib Dems) or vice versa (Labour).

Of course, what the term actually means in common practice (from Google) is 'difficult economic conditions created by government measures to reduce public expenditure'. The Tories and Lib Dems imposed the former (in the midst of a historic recession). Granted, they were not especially concerned about the latter, or else they would have raised taxes rather than lowering them, as your definition suggests.

And what Labour pledged in 2017 was to reverse the 'difficult economic conditions created by government measures' by increasing public expendure - so, clearly not in any sense an austerity platform, save for the most tendentious and pedantic applications of the term.

As the Wikipedia definition says, it's about reducing the deficit. This can come via spending cuts (as the Tories largely did) or tax rises (as Labour would propose). It's not 'that' difficult.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Think it´s pretty harsh you claim it´s the education system failing a large chunk of society when we´ve got children´s whose families are relying on food banks. So many of these children are raised in overcrowded housing and arrive at school with a limited vocabulary compared to their more affluent peers. We had 4 children in the reception class in my last school turn up in nappies for example. This is at a time when school budgets are being slashed and you´ve got some schools not being able to open on Friday afternoons to save money.

Maybe the public sector is failing these children but if you set something up to fail so badly are you honestly surprised? Independent schools might get brilliant results but it´s down to the benefit of smaller class sizes, less disruptive behaviour and outstanding facilities/opportunities. Another example is that we organised a trip to London with my last school. Out of the class of 23, 7 couldn´t afford to go. Pretty heartbreaking for those kids to watch their friends go off and experience something like that whilst they stay at school.

I would argue that parenting has as much to do with the benefits enjoyed by pupils at private schools as opposed to state schools. If you look at the performance of poor ethnic minority students in British schools, they typically do incredibly well, especially those from Asian backgrounds. They often don't have a lot of money, but they place a lot of emphasis on learning and the value of education, and it pays off. Things like the Dolly Parton trust have done enormously good work in terms of making books available for all children (sadly that would probably be decried as 'big society' nonsense), but the data simply shows that poorer white parents don't read to their children (or even speak to them). My sister in law is a classic example, as her kids are in front of the tv all day, and they're a long way behind where they should be in terms of speech development, social skills, and other things as a result.

It's noticeable that the best performing countries in education terms, such as South Korea, Poland and Finland, all take different approaches to education, but one thing they all have in common is that they culturally value education very highly. There's a tendency among advocates of a big state to assume that an ever bigger state will solve each and every problem of society, and if only the state was big enough that no problems would exist. In an educational context, Labour could do great things if they helped spread the culture that's so prevalent in Poland and Finland here, especially among their working class constituents. Alas for the past 70 years they've failed to do that.

 

[Billy Dean]

I would argue that parenting has as much to do with the benefits enjoyed by pupils at private schools as opposed to state schools. If you look at the performance of poor ethnic minority students in British schools, they typically do incredibly well, especially those from Asian backgrounds. They often don't have a lot of money, but they place a lot of emphasis on learning and the value of education, and it pays off. Things like the Dolly Parton trust have done enormously good work in terms of making books available for all children (sadly that would probably be decried as 'big society' nonsense), but the data simply shows that poorer white parents don't read to their children (or even speak to them). My sister in law is a classic example, as her kids are in front of the tv all day, and they're a long way behind where they should be in terms of speech development, social skills, and other things as a result.

It's noticeable that the best performing countries in education terms, such as South Korea, Poland and Finland, all take different approaches to education, but one thing they all have in common is that they culturally value education very highly. There's a tendency among advocates of a big state to assume that an ever bigger state will solve each and every problem of society, and if only the state was big enough that no problems would exist. In an educational context, Labour could do great things if they helped spread the culture that's so prevalent in Poland and Finland here, especially among their working class constituents. Alas for the past 70 years they've failed to do that.

I think I read recently that the Finnish education system is completely public.

 

[Billy Dean]

Interesting on the private schools issue (from New Statesman):

During the compositing process, John McDonnell – who publicly endorsed the motion – indicated that he could not support the motion in its original form. Yet the campaigners brooked no compromise. The leadership briefly considered opposing the motion altogether, but eventually arrived at the conclusion that accepting it was the least worst option: abolishing the tax-free status of private schools is already party policy, and its bolder proposals can be avoided altogether. As one source said: “We’ll do the first and withdraw the tax privileges, and ignore the rest.”

Full article: https://www.newstatesman.com/politi...ent-abolish-private-schools-isnt-all-it-seems

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I think I read recently that the Finnish education system is completely public.

My point is that the best performing school systems in the world don't have much in common apart from the mentality or culture of importance given to education in those countries, which kinda suggests that it's 'that' that we need to focus on rather than who runs the schools.

 

[dannyboy]

I would argue that parenting has as much to do with the benefits enjoyed by pupils at private schools as opposed to state schools. If you look at the performance of poor ethnic minority students in British schools, they typically do incredibly well, especially those from Asian backgrounds. They often don't have a lot of money, but they place a lot of emphasis on learning and the value of education, and it pays off. Things like the Dolly Parton trust have done enormously good work in terms of making books available for all children (sadly that would probably be decried as 'big society' nonsense), but the data simply shows that poorer white parents don't read to their children (or even speak to them). My sister in law is a classic example, as her kids are in front of the tv all day, and they're a long way behind where they should be in terms of speech development, social skills, and other things as a result.

It's noticeable that the best performing countries in education terms, such as South Korea, Poland and Finland, all take different approaches to education, but one thing they all have in common is that they culturally value education very highly. There's a tendency among advocates of a big state to assume that an ever bigger state will solve each and every problem of society, and if only the state was big enough that no problems would exist. In an educational context, Labour could do great things if they helped spread the culture that's so prevalent in Poland and Finland here, especially among their working class constituents. Alas for the past 70 years they've failed to do that.

At least in South Korea and Finland I would imagine teachers are paid extremely well and are a respected profession. In the UK, probably not so much. I don´t mind whether it´s a big state that finds solutions or a right wing government, I´d just like solutions so the barriers preventing these children from progressing are broken down.

 

[Billy Dean]

My point is that the best performing school systems in the world don't have much in common apart from the mentality or culture of importance given to education in those countries, which kinda suggests that it's 'that' that we need to focus on rather than who runs the schools.

In South Korea it's more a case of a culture of flogging kids half to death. I think I read that South Korea has the world's highest child suicide rates.

 

[abelard]

As the Wikipedia definition says, it's about reducing the deficit. This can come via spending cuts (as the Tories largely did) or tax rises (as Labour would propose). It's not 'that' difficult.

So you're not actually concerned about a deficit with Labour, like other posters seem to be? You're saying that you believe Labour can restore funding to the NHS, schools, the justice system, local councils and still lower the deficit?

But what, you'd rather have annual hospital crises, schools closing down on Fridays, a crime wave and collapsing prisons, and councils declaring bankruptcy, not because we can't afford to fix it, but because restoring corporate tax to 2010 levels and slightly raising taxes on income over £80k would be worse?