Current Affairs The Labour Party

[Billy Dean]

Are we really suggesting that all of Labour's enormous spending proposals can be funded via a rise in income tax alone?

Well no. As that link shows, income tax would not change much if at all for the majority

 

[catcherintherye]

They 'think' they will be a net positive for the population. That's the crucial difference. There's an overwhelming sense of hubris among Labour thinkers that the only way for a service to be delivered 'humanely' to society is when they're the ones delivering it. Given how shambolic their running of their own party has been over the past few years, you'll have to forgive me for viewing that assertion with a huge amount of skepticism.

I think we are discussing slightly different things Bruce. I am talking at a very general level. Of course you get very incompetent Labour administrations etc. It's more just a broad point about the advantages each organisation has. If all things were equal, Labour's advantage is it exists to benefit the majority of people, the Conservatives to benefit a small but powerful minority.

One of the problems for Labour is as you say competency, there's an issue of communication too. I think both things can be true simultaneously.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Of course the wealthiest pay the most (in theory, in actuality many avoid paying what they ought because of elaborate schemes, though that tends to be more the super rich). However they earn most of the money. I saw something on Richard Bacon the other day, where he said something like the top 5% pay 27% of the tax so we can't criticise them. However they earn 73% of the money, so in relative terms they are notreally contributing what they ought, or even close to it, if that makes sense?

As for the 2nd point, I believe that is fair. I don't think it's massively realistic from Mcdonnell, just as I don't think Johnsons giveaways, in the context of a hard Brexit Deal and lowering taxes are realistic. I also think, at this stage the electorate are going to massively appreciate a stringently honest approach (which Blair was very good at). I am not sure thats the epoch currently.

What Mcdonnell's manifesto does, is open the space and question that the reason why promises aren't kept to the full is because the wealthy avoiding their taxes, as opposed to those who are currently blamed, be it single mothers, the unemployed, migrants, refugees etc. Given the worrying rise of the far right, this is a worthwhile and arguably essential reset if we are to beat back some of these ideas.

I didn't mean to cause any offence with the "vanity" phrase, but given it's early on a Saturday I struggled to find a more apt one! I hope it can be seen that I wasn't trying to be lazy or offensive with it. Hayek speaks about this, which is what we do with our money and how the more money we have, the less essential it becomes. I've seen that myself, I started working at 15 on minimum wage and gradually built up as I've got older. The more money I have the less essential it feels, which is nice in many ways for me as an individual. However at a societal level I can also see why my preferences are not as essential as someone with very little money.

As for the final point you make, I would countenance against making assumptions on what people do with their money. Again what you are talking about is Hayek's idea that people will naturally give money away if they have lots. My answer would be that it ought to be under the democratic control of a government, as opposed to the whim of wealthier individuals. If you have the former you get all sorts of "deserving and undeserving" narratives that cause enormous damage to the fabric of society.

To change society for the better, we need a degree of coordination, centrality, planning and strategic decision making which I'm not sure can be done solely from relying upon the benevolence of individuals. Anyway I hope I haven't rubbed you up the wrong way, that wasn't my intention with comments such as vanity.

The richest 5% of the population pay half of the income tax, which is a lot as much of the wealth of the super wealthy isn't from income at all, but things like property and shares. Incidentally, no offence taken at all, and being a keen cyclist I see every day the (to me) bonkers sums people spend on stuff they don't need. Being a tight old sod, it makes no more sense to me than buying a flash car, but each to their own

I don't doubt that the state play an important role in coordinating activity, and indeed that's one of the key roles played by the EU, but there's a difference between governing and coordinating the market and participating in it. When you do both, then the evidence of the last century shows quite clearly that service levels drop as rent seeking kicks in and vested interests distort the system. Monopolies are bad news regardless of whether they're a public or private monopoly, yet there's the sense that socialists believe themselves to be purer of spirit and therefore immune to the distorting lure of monopolies. It's balderdash. Humans are humans.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I think we are discussing slightly different things Bruce. I am talking at a very general level. Of course you get very incompetent Labour administrations etc. It's more just a broad point about the advantages each organisation has. If all things were equal, Labour's advantage is it exists to benefit the majority of people, the Conservatives to benefit a small but powerful minority.

One of the problems for Labour is as you say competency, there's an issue of communication too. I think both things can be true simultaneously.

Without wishing to defend the Tories, who are beyond defense, the argument seems to rest, as you say, on perceptions of competence. Labour believe that only government can provide good quality service to people, whereas liberals believe that people are better served when all of society are allowed to do so.

The key though, for me at least, is what happens when things don't go well. It's really easy when you get a good administration (whether public or private), as everyone's happy then. The question is, what can you do when you get a stinker? When you've got a monopoly provider, you're kinda stuffed aren't you? If the one hospital in your town is rubbish then it's surely no solace that it's run by the NHS and therefore supposedly exists to benefit the majority.

 

[Billy Dean]

The richest 5% of the population pay half of the income tax, which is a lot as much of the wealth of the super wealthy isn't from income at all, but things like property and shares. Incidentally, no offence taken at all, and being a keen cyclist I see every day the (to me) bonkers sums people spend on stuff they don't need. Being a tight old sod, it makes no more sense to me than buying a flash car, but each to their own

I don't doubt that the state play an important role in coordinating activity, and indeed that's one of the key roles played by the EU, but there's a difference between governing and coordinating the market and participating in it. When you do both, then the evidence of the last century shows quite clearly that service levels drop as rent seeking kicks in and vested interests distort the system. Monopolies are bad news regardless of whether they're a public or private monopoly, yet there's the sense that socialists believe themselves to be purer of spirit and therefore immune to the distorting lure of monopolies. It's balderdash. Humans are humans.

I wouldn't say that, surely just more of an ideological belief that not intervening in the market leads to vast inequalities because as you say humans are humans.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I wouldn't say that, surely just more of an ideological belief that not intervening in the market leads to vast inequalities because as you say humans are humans.

The growth in inequality is largely a result of globalisation isn't it? You've got a scenario now where a hairdresser still operates locally (obviously) so their income has stayed much the same, but entrepreneurs and business folk who can operate globally have a much larger potential market and so their income has boomed. There's a sense that inequality has grown because the hairdresser is getting screwed over, but I'm not sure that's the case, and focusing on relative wealth rather than absolute wealth does no favours.

I mean if Richarlison moved onto our street, his income would make everyone relatively poor, yet their absolute wealth wouldn't have changed at all, and so long as all of the usual costs of living don't get distorted by Richarlison's presence (which they generally don't) then they're no worse off at all.

 

[catcherintherye]

The richest 5% of the population pay half of the income tax, which is a lot as much of the wealth of the super wealthy isn't from income at all, but things like property and shares. Incidentally, no offence taken at all, and being a keen cyclist I see every day the (to me) bonkers sums people spend on stuff they don't need. Being a tight old sod, it makes no more sense to me than buying a flash car, but each to their own

I don't doubt that the state play an important role in coordinating activity, and indeed that's one of the key roles played by the EU, but there's a difference between governing and coordinating the market and participating in it. When you do both, then the evidence of the last century shows quite clearly that service levels drop as rent seeking kicks in and vested interests distort the system. Monopolies are bad news regardless of whether they're a public or private monopoly, yet there's the sense that socialists believe themselves to be purer of spirit and therefore immune to the distorting lure of monopolies. It's balderdash. Humans are humans.

I certainly don't subscribe to the view that I have a purer spirit than anyone else. My view would be, the state has a degree of longevity in it's thinking that gives it a unique perspective that can dovetail effectively with the private sector. I agree it's not perfection, I don't think perfection exists, but if it's "good", or "better" I am happy with that.

I am not in favour of just re-hashing the 1970's either. Personally I'd like to see the state be bolder than the market in certain areas. I'd like to see more gambling on green enterprises, smaller start ups etc. You mention cycling, to me I'd like to see that become a far bigger priority too, heavily subsidised bikes for people, maybe a policy that each child is given a bike. Do this alongside, a mass cycle lane building scheme in all our cities. There would be enormous job creation from these things as well, as well as a lot of social benefits.

Thats what the state can see too. It can weigh up job creation, with healthy living, with costs saved at the back end in the NHS, to environmental pluses in the same policy. Very few businesses will be able to have this breadth of views so you can't expect them too.

In some ways I do think the Blair government tried to do things like this, having joint up, multi agency approaches, where different areas of the state worked alongside voluntary sectors and businesses. To me thats one of the lingering success stories of that time. People working together, from different perspectives will achieve more. To me this is as much 21st century socialism as re-nationalising industries.

Thats what the great Labour government have done. They have thought big, and given people important advances that they want to defend. They have also used the state to co-ordinate big projects and ideas.

 

[catcherintherye]

I wouldn't say that, surely just more of an ideological belief that not intervening in the market leads to vast inequalities because as you say humans are humans.

Which is what you find under the Hayek model really. You get a country that represents the interests of the chosen few, and we wonder why town centres are shutting down (as I said in the initial post).

 

[catcherintherye]

Without wishing to defend the Tories, who are beyond defense, the argument seems to rest, as you say, on perceptions of competence. Labour believe that only government can provide good quality service to people, whereas liberals believe that people are better served when all of society are allowed to do so.

The key though, for me at least, is what happens when things don't go well. It's really easy when you get a good administration (whether public or private), as everyone's happy then. The question is, what can you do when you get a stinker? When you've got a monopoly provider, you're kinda stuffed aren't you? If the one hospital in your town is rubbish then it's surely no solace that it's run by the NHS and therefore supposedly exists to benefit the majority.

I am just talking broadly, about the strengths and weaknesses of each. It's not perfect, but broadly speaking Labour's strength is it wants to help 90% of people, but it's weakness is it doesn't have much authority in powerful positions. This is why, under Blair one thing they did well was deliver very simple, short messages effectively and repetitively.

In all honesty I think we have appalling management across both sectors in this country. There seems to be very little accountability and I'm not sure the British really understand wha good management looks like. However if a hospital is poor, like if a business is poor, there isn't a lot you can do to magically make it better, beyond changing those running it in the hope it gets better.

 

[davek]

The two parties have distinctive advantages. Labour's is that it's policies will be a net positive for up to 90% of the population, or at the very worst a net neutral (for those towards the top end of that bracket).
The Conservatives is that the 5%-10% or so that benefit under their governance wield an enormous amount of power, wealth and influence. They fill the majority of the key aspects of the state, be it legal, editors of news outlets, headteachers at schools, MP's, senior members of the civil service etc.

It's why I never really go massively along with the complaints of the press attacking Labour. That will always happen, if your plan as Labour is you will wait until the press stop doing that, you will never win. If all things were equal on that footing, how could the Conservatives ever win? It would be like a roulette wheel, where they had 4 numbers to pick, and Labour have the rest.

It's why the fixation and narrowness of approach from Blair (and most of the MP's who are to a greater or lesser degree in his image) is tactically majorly floored. Yes for a short period they got some support from the media, but at huge cost and it was really a temporary measure until the Conservatives sorted themselves out. There was never any longevity in it. To keep harping back to that moment seems incredibly naive to me.

Labour have to push out the message clearly, that the manifesto will benefit most people. That message kills the Conservatives (or greatly alarms them). Mcdonnell consistently saying only tax rises for the top 5% is very effective. The Conservative will obfuscate and give examples of people in or around the top 5%, living in London with 6 kids who can barely afford child care to gain sympathy, but when it's presented in a numeric form, as in it's the top 5% it crystallises what it means for people.

You are right to characterise the break we are seeing currently as the breakup of neoliberalism as well. I sensed that died when May reversed most of the austerity agenda and started blabbering on about doing more for working people (the same message Blairites tried to ban Labour from talking about). However it does not automatically have to break to the left. The right can capitalise in moments like this.

Famously in Weimar, where inequality then depression hit, people suffered, the inability of the left to come up with a united and clear message then opened the door for the right with tragic consequences. We really do have to be aware that in moments like this. Get this wrong and it may not just be a period of Conservative rule we are looking at.

On issues other than Brexit Labour wins hands down. They are, after all, the only adult in the room on matters like education, the NHS, manufacturing investment, housing etc etc. No one is going to take what Joihnson says seriously given his track record on lying to the nation, so that feller could campaign from last month to Christmas with zero effect on those issues.

If the GE campaign broadens out beyond Brexit (which it will) the LP will pick up massive support. It\s Labour's time. Everyone knows that.

 

[Billy Dean]

The growth in inequality is largely a result of globalisation isn't it? You've got a scenario now where a hairdresser still operates locally (obviously) so their income has stayed much the same, but entrepreneurs and business folk who can operate globally have a much larger potential market and so their income has boomed. There's a sense that inequality has grown because the hairdresser is getting screwed over, but I'm not sure that's the case, and focusing on relative wealth rather than absolute wealth does no favours.

I mean if Richarlison moved onto our street, his income would make everyone relatively poor, yet their absolute wealth wouldn't have changed at all, and so long as all of the usual costs of living don't get distorted by Richarlison's presence (which they generally don't) then they're no worse off at all.

The growth in inequality is largely a result of globalisation isn't it? You've got a scenario now where a hairdresser still operates locally (obviously) so their income has stayed much the same, but entrepreneurs and business folk who can operate globally have a much larger potential market and so their income has boomed. There's a sense that inequality has grown because the hairdresser is getting screwed over, but I'm not sure that's the case, and focusing on relative wealth rather than absolute wealth does no favours.

I mean if Richarlison moved onto our street, his income would make everyone relatively poor, yet their absolute wealth wouldn't have changed at all, and so long as all of the usual costs of living don't get distorted by Richarlison's presence (which they generally don't) then they're no worse off at all.

Globalisation is partly the imposition of a neo liberal economic theory that specifically favours big businesses, the rich etc. If a hairdresser has the same income and can no longer afford things like decent healthcare or education for their kids then inequality becomes a problem surely. If a certain group has access to a booming amount of capital then surely it’s in their interest to make them redistribute some of it so society doesn’t get left behind. Otherwise the end game is some kind of dystopian divided society with the rich in gated communities and everyone else in slums

 

[Billy Dean]

The growth in inequality is largely a result of globalisation isn't it? You've got a scenario now where a hairdresser still operates locally (obviously) so their income has stayed much the same, but entrepreneurs and business folk who can operate globally have a much larger potential market and so their income has boomed. There's a sense that inequality has grown because the hairdresser is getting screwed over, but I'm not sure that's the case, and focusing on relative wealth rather than absolute wealth does no favours.

I mean if Richarlison moved onto our street, his income would make everyone relatively poor, yet their absolute wealth wouldn't have changed at all, and so long as all of the usual costs of living don't get distorted by Richarlison's presence (which they generally don't) then they're no worse off at all.

Also, the very groups that have the advantage have often gained it through socialist policies like state investment in technology

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Globalisation is partly the imposition of a neo liberal economic theory that specifically favours big businesses, the rich etc. If a hairdresser has the same income and can no longer afford things like decent healthcare or education for their kids then inequality becomes a problem surely. If a certain group has access to a booming amount of capital then surely it’s in their interest to make them redistribute some of it so society doesn’t get left behind. Otherwise the end game is some kind of dystopian divided society with the rich in gated communities and everyone else in slums

As I said though, that has largely not happened. Food is still very affordable to all, whilst healthcare and education are free at the point of delivery. Those gated communities simply don't happen at all, certainly not in the UK. Indeed, in my part of London you have extremely wealthy and extremely poor barely a street from one another.

 

[Billy Dean]

As I said though, that has largely not happened. Food is still very affordable to all, whilst healthcare and education are free at the point of delivery. Those gated communities simply don't happen at all, certainly not in the UK. Indeed, in my part of London you have extremely wealthy and extremely poor barely a street from one another.

The world economic forum reported a dramatic increase in child poverty in the UK under 10 years of Tory (and Lib Dem) govt.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

The world economic forum reported a dramatic increase in child poverty in the UK under 10 years of Tory (and Lib Dem) govt.

Or in other news, a dramatic increase in child poverty in the wake of the biggest recession in 100 years.

The graph above suggests that the economy has held up slightly better than it did after the Depression, which is undoubtedly positive, but to suggest that we would ever carry on like nothing happened is madness. There was always going to be some fallout (sadly), as that's kinda what happens during recessions.

It's also sadly a reality that the Recession affected the lower skilled more than the higher skilled (as is often the case tbh), which has resulted in inequality growing.