The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[blandy]

46 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

he said he's a liability, which is  true  and not a personal attack , and a f- tard in Leadership terms  (which is also true)  but specifically refers to the him as a leader , not him as a person

Ah, Thanks Tony. Yes, that was exactly what I meant. If that's what Darren objected to, then I'm comfortable with what I wrote.

I don't doubt that Corbyn is probably more sincere as a person that a number of MPs of whichever party (though I'm less sure he is that much more principled, really, in the way that he is proclaimed to the rafters to be by his devotees). I like his anti-fracking, vegetarian, non-greedy, try and help those who need help side. Basically a gentle, harmless, essentially kind person.

I am less keen on his association with some proper ropy anti-semetic geezers, various barmpots and crazies from the hard left, the non-real world  and the aspects that fail to follow through with thinking - the let's have nuclear subs with no nuclear weapons type of thinking. The both for and against leaving the EU, for and against leaving the single market, for and against immigration control. Maximum wage limits - all idiocy from recent months.

[chrisp65]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

 The UK, and England particularly just is not and never has been left wing enough to elect a left wing Labour Gov't. I doubt it ever will be.

I understand the opinion. But I don't agree. It needs something massive to stir 'the people' in to action but it can be done.

Perhaps you mustn't use the 's' word. Perhaps rather than announcing you will be attending an international conference of socialists you should be announcing that higher tax on multi million pound houses will be spent to staff hospitals and create bed space.

But some people are more interested in the meeting, than the purpose of the meeting. He's giving me the impression, he likes the talking, but isn't overly bothered about getting the power to do a bit of walking.

The 1945 Labour Government:

Quote

The free health service was paid for directly through public money. Government income was increased for the welfare state expenditure by a severe increase in marginal tax rates for wealthy business owners in particular, as part of what the Labour government largely saw as the redistribution of the wealth created by the working class from the owners of large-scale industry to the workers

The NHS was formed when we were tired and broke and the BMA were against it.

At the same time, we were building vast swathes of social housing. We got working class kids educated beyond the age of 14, nationalised the railways and made working conditions safer for millions.

Socialism 'for' the people.

[blandy]

5 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

The NHS was formed when we were tired and broke and the BMA were against it.

At the same time, we were building vast swathes of social housing. We got working class kids educated beyond the age of 14, nationalised the railways and made working conditions safer for millions.

Socialism 'for' the people.

Good point well made. I might be mistaken, or my compass might be awry, but personally anyway, I don't consider the NHS, or councils providing housing or a state owned and run railway to be particularly left wing, in all honesty.

I gwnuinely think that those are the kind of mainstream, left-ish leaning things that the majority of the country, even now would be and is in favour of. They're the type of things that IMO Corbyn and his party should be consistently espousing, over and over. Mainline on them. Add in the inequality agenda (at the right time), Tax dodging Plcs, and economic competence, consistency on Europe, consistency on jobs and keep attacking the tories and they'd be shoe in for next Gov't.

[darrenm]

8 minutes ago, blandy said:

Ah, Thanks Tony. Yes, that was exactly what I meant. If that's what Darren objected to, then I'm comfortable with what I wrote.

I don't doubt that Corbyn is probably more sincere as a person that a number of MPs of whichever party (though I'm less sure he is that much more principled, really, in the way that he is proclaimed to the rafters to be by his devotees). I like his anti-fracking, vegetarian, non-greedy, try and help those who need help side. Basically a gentle, harmless, essentially kind person.

I am less keen on his association with some proper ropy anti-semetic geezers, various barmpots and crazies from the hard left, the non-real world  and the aspects that fail to follow through with thinking - the let's have nuclear subs with no nuclear weapons type of thinking. The both for and against leaving the EU, for and against leaving the single market, for and against immigration control. Maximum wage limits - all idiocy from recent months.

Interesting, that's pretty much the same as me. But I can't see a lot wrong there. I don't know a lot about the associations other than he was trying to be a peacebroker rather than hide the associations for weapons sales like the rest of the establishment. I see the nuclear subs with no nuclear weapons as trying to be a bit populist when he really doesn't want nuclear weapons, as I really don't want nuclear weapons. When it all blows up I want to be at the side with the rest of the insignificant neutrals, rather than one of the 3 pointing a gun at each other. I agree with maximum wage limits (essentially similar to what we already do with top rate tax but taking it a step further)

Yes, I meant the personal attacks on Corbyn, sorry thought it was obvious. I'm not offended on his behalf. But it's pretty strong language. I could call you a f*tard as a VT poster (which of course I wouldn't) and it wouldn't be much less offensive than leaving the qualifier off. It's your opinion and your right to say, it just looks like he ran over your dog.

[chrisp65]

14 minutes ago, blandy said:

Good point well made. I might be mistaken, or my compass might be awry, but personally anyway, I don't consider the NHS, or councils providing housing or a state owned and run railway to be particularly left wing, in all honesty.

The NHS is free to all at the point of use, having been funded by each according to their ability to pay. Its services are allocated on the principle of ‘to each, according to need’.
It’s beautiful.
It’s Marxist.
 

[tonyh29]

1 minute ago, chrisp65 said:

The NHS is free to all at the point of use, having been funded by each according to their ability to pay. Its services are allocated on the principle of ‘to each, according to need’.
It’s beautiful.
It’s Marxist.
 

apart from their  bloody car parks

[blandy]

20 minutes ago, darrenm said:

the personal attacks on Corbyn, sorry thought it was obvious. I'm not offended on his behalf. But it's pretty strong language. I could call you a f*tard as a VT poster (which of course I wouldn't) and it wouldn't be much less offensive than leaving the qualifier off

I think the difference is being a poster on VT isn't my job. Being leader of Labour is his job. It's not going well. He's effing useless at it. Sorry, it's not a personal attack, it's a verifiable judgement

[darrenm]

Oh I don't like his current standing on the referendum actually. But all these things come down the same old argument don't they?

Principles v power

Beautiful football and relegation v effective football and survival

Idealism v Pragmatism

[TrentVilla]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

I think the difference is being a poster on VT isn't my job. Being leader of Labour is his job. It's not going well. He's effing useless at it. Sorry, it's not a personal attack, it's a verifiable judgement

We aren't getting paid for this? 

[blandy]

12 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Oh I don't like his current standing on the referendum actually. But all these things come down the same old argument don't they?

Principles v power

Beautiful football and relegation v effective football and survival

Idealism v Pragmatism

The difficulty Jez has is that he is to a large extent sold and promoted and self proclaimed as a "man of principle". So when he clearly demonstrates traits that are obviously not "principled" he i more damaged than would be the case for politicians who arejust, y'know, regular politicians. Like with the LDs and Tuition fees - all parties break promises, but the LDs did it on tuition fees and got slaughtered "But we thought you were different". Turns out they weren't different. The same applies to Jezza.

The add in the failure to communicate coherently via the media, add in the leaking of lists of MP who are enemies, the veiled threats about deselection, the "nothing to do with me" actions of his followers in abusing and threatening, and the reluctance of him to even mention, let alone condemn that intimdation. The refusal to allow people to vote in private for the NEC stuff.

He's rather grubbier than his followers will admit.

[blandy]

24 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

We aren't getting paid for this? 

Next life, Dude.

[peterms]

Some discussion by Chris Dillow on wage ratios and caps.

Quote

Jeremy Corbyn’s call for “some kind of high earnings cap” on high pay has its flaws. But it’s potentially a good idea.

The first flaw in it is that it’s lousy presentation, and suggests Corbyn’s team have learned little from behavioural economics. A wage ceiling allows lackeys of the rich to whine that Labour hates the well-off. We should reframe the policy. Rather than say nobody should earn (say) 20 times more than the lowest earner we should say that nobody should earn less than one-twentieth of the top earner. We should call the wage cap a wage floor.

The second problem is that a blanket wage floor is too blunt a policy. It doesn’t distinguish between different types of inequality. Some wage inequalities might be tolerable on economic grounds* if they are rewards for great service. This might be the case for entertainers, sportspeople, innovators and even, I’ll concede, some good managers. Other inequalities, though, arise from rigged markets, cronyism and exploitation. It’s these we should most want to abolish. But a simple legal wage floor hits all inequalities indiscriminately, as do higher taxes. That’s sub-optimal.

There are, though, solutions here.

One possibility, as Corbyn says, for the wage floor to apply only to government contracts. Here, the problem of deterring innovation isn’t so great: what matters is that contracts be sufficiently well-written to avoid agency problems. A wage floor would help disincentivize the rent-seeking that accompanies outsourcing.

A second possibility is to have worker and/or consumer representatives on remuneration committees for larger firms. If a manager or innovator adds great value, the dispersed wisdom of crowds should recognise this and so accept a high wage ratio. But where managers are mere rent-seekers, the committee will rein in his pay.

It’s possible that these mechanisms will actually stimulate the free market that rightists (often insincerely) claim to want. If a manager thinks he has great talents which aren’t sufficiently rewarded by a cap on wage ratios, he should set up his own business where the wage cap doesn’t apply**. In this way, a wage floor might actually incentivize entrepreneurship.

I’d add three other observations:

Corbyn is right to identify inequality as an issue. The fact that productivity has stagnated after an increase in inequality should alert us to the likelihood that inequality is indeed bad for growth.

Measures to tackle wage inequality, however, are not sufficient. Inequality of pay is a symptom of inequality of power – and this is an under-rated problem.

What we want here are policies that are stepping stones towards more socialist ones. For example, a cap in inequalities in companies getting government contracts might encourage the growth of co-ops. And greater worker representation on remuneration committees might lead to demands for more worker power in other dimensions. Blind statist policies might be a dead-end, but more flexible and empowering ones might not be.

* We should distinguish between economic and moral objections to inequality. Even if inequalities arise in a perfectly free market and have no adverse economic effects, there might still be philosophical objections to them from, for example, luck egalitarians.

** If worker/consumer-dominated remuneration boards only applied to firms employing more than 250 people they would cover only 0.4% of companies. This would provide a very big sector where bosses could earn as much as their talents would permit.

 

[veloman]

2 hours ago, peterms said:

Some discussion by Chris Dillow on wage ratios and caps.

2 hours ago, peterms said:

This might be the case for entertainers, sportspeople

With my slight knowledge of macro economics, this is the principle of 'transfer payments and economic rent' and, in the 1970's when I studied it, was quite well known. Of course, it may have been discredited or just unfashionable now - bit like the 'multiplier' for example. I' m surprised Corbyn doesn't seem aware of it.  

 

[OutByEaster?]

4 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

Whichever it is, it is what it is.

A left wing Labour Party won't win power.

And given that what it is is an extension of Milton Friedman's insane dream, then we desperately need some sort of way to make it what it is not.

It's a sad situation, everybody knows that the current system doesn't work (with the exception of the tiny minority that benefit from it) but nobody has an idea of what a better society could look like that doesn't seem like an insane pipe dream.

 

[OutByEaster?]

4 hours ago, blandy said:

Good point well made. I might be mistaken, or my compass might be awry, but personally anyway, I don't consider the NHS, or councils providing housing or a state owned and run railway to be particularly left wing, in all honesty.

The prevailing global political and economic system does consider them left wing, it considers them to be extreme, dangerous and an obstacle to a balanced economy. That's the politic we embraced with Reagan and Thatcher; 50's Chicago school Friedman economics.

 

 

[blandy]

1 minute ago, OutByEaster? said:

The prevailing global political and economic system does consider them left wing, it considers them to be extreme, dangerous and an obstacle to a balanced economy. That's the politic we embraced with Reagan and Thatcher; 50's Chicago school Friedman economics.

It's hard to argue against that, but part of me just thinks, nah. The people in the Uk, in the street see those things as pretty middle of the road, normal, where stuff's rooted. Maybe media or economists or whoevers see them as left wing at the moment, but I bet if you asked most people "is having an NHS left wing?" or "is having a nationally owned and run railway left wing"? they'd say "no, it's middle of the road, the sort of thing that I approve of". Ditto council housing.

You're right that the likes of the evil witch and her cohorts and parts of the current nasty party might see them as obscene socialist notions, but I think they're out of line, not ornery people.

[darrenm]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

It's hard to argue against that, but part of me just thinks, nah. The people in the Uk, in the street see those things as pretty middle of the road, normal, where stuff's rooted. Maybe media or economists or whoevers see them as left wing at the moment, but I bet if you asked most people "is having an NHS left wing?" or "is having a nationally owned and run railway left wing"? they'd say "no, it's middle of the road, the sort of thing that I approve of". Ditto council housing.

You're right that the likes of the evil witch and her cohorts and parts of the current nasty party might see them as obscene socialist notions, but I think they're out of line, not ornery people.

I think the man on the street would say the NHS is fairly centre but nationalised rail is hard left wing, such is the misrepresentation of socialism, and the misunderstanding of policies.

[veloman]

16 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

The prevailing global political and economic system does consider them left wing, it considers them to be extreme, dangerous and an obstacle to a balanced economy. That's the politic we embraced with Reagan and Thatcher; 50's Chicago school Friedman economics.

 

 

Is that 'Monetarism as opposed to Keynesian ?

[OutByEaster?]

48 minutes ago, veloman said:

Is that 'Monetarism as opposed to Keynesian ?

Free market principles as opposed to Keynesian's more statist approach. (I think, I'm not an economist.)

 

[OutByEaster?]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

It's hard to argue against that, but part of me just thinks, nah. The people in the Uk, in the street see those things as pretty middle of the road, normal, where stuff's rooted. Maybe media or economists or whoevers see them as left wing at the moment, but I bet if you asked most people "is having an NHS left wing?" or "is having a nationally owned and run railway left wing"? they'd say "no, it's middle of the road, the sort of thing that I approve of". Ditto council housing.

And then because they don't think of these things as left wing, they vote for parties who are patently opposed to them, but couch their opposition in confusing rhetoric that makes them sound sympathetic to those things they ideologically abhor. "A shared society" that sounds nice.