Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

Cheesy said:
I'm not saying older people are evil or even bad or anything - I'm just saying that many of them financially got a much better deal than this generation are getting when it comes to housing, jobs etc, and whereas we don't batter an eyelid at the many financial perks they receive even when they don't need any of them, attempts to give anything to younger voters are automatically cast off as 'bribes' and unnecessary handouts as opposed to Corbyn just trying to incentivise his core voter base in the same way the Tories try to keep their core base on their side with preferable policies, the primary one of course being Brexit which is driven by the older sectors of the population in spite of the fact many youngsters fear the lasting economic impact it'll have. One is seen as wise electoral policy; the other gets cast off as economic mismanagement.
Click to expand...


It's a good job too because that would be very painful.
 
Honest John said:
But their houses are usually sold off to pay for the private care. That is the point. And what was being proposed was not a total sale of the property. There was a limit. It's either something like that or it falls on the tax payer as a whole. In that case you'd have the situation where wealthy people were being funded by cash-strapped tax-payers. Please don't say it can be funded by raising the taxes of higher earners - that pot has been more than run dry by free university education and now bus passes.
Click to expand...

Reversal in corporate tax cuts, and investing in an economy to help it grow.
 
11101 said:
And how's that going to be paid for? Not that the small details bother Corbyn much.
Click to expand...
Growth in the economy - a virtuous circle of spending leading to growth leading to more tax receipts etc. Instead of the current vicious circle the other way round.
 
Sparky Rhiwabon said:
Growth in the economy - a virtuous circle of spending leading to growth leading to more tax receipts etc. Instead of the current vicious circle the other way round.
Click to expand...

Unchecked spending has never worked before so what's different this time.
 
Lentwood said:
Bus Passes for U25s

As soon as a person pops up and says “how is that going to be paid for?” whatever opinion they might offer after that is almost certainly totally irrelevant

You CANNOT compare Government finances to your own finances in the sense that Macroeconomics is not ‘zero-sum’. It’s not like your household finances where you have a certain amount of money to allocate at the end of every month and a certain amount of outgoings to cover.

I think people imagine that whoever is in power is sat there looking at some bank statement thinking “hmmmm...want to give young people bus passes....have to cut something....hmmmm....OK let’s get rid of a few hospitals”

Doesn’t work that way. Think of each decision instead as an investment, not a cost. For example, what is the ROI in giving young people bus passes? More young people from low-income families can travel to work/college. Do I have to explain the benefits of that? Surely not.

What is the ROI in giving Colin, 65, retired from Wiltshire with a house worth £650K and a holiday home in Spain a bus pass? Next to nil.

When a Party announce a policy, ask yourself, “who is this policy intended to benefit, why, and what’s the benefit for Society as a whole”
Click to expand...
Think this a tad patronising. I am no economist, but surely you do have to fund any investment, don't you? Otherwise, why bother with the budget.
 
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/...-for-opposing-the-syria-strike-is-collapsing/

Were Bashar al-Assad to be found guilty, Corbyn then said, he should be told to ‘come in and destroy those weapons, as they did in 2013 and 2015’. Note he offers two dates: if weapons were destroyed in 2013 why should there have been the need to do anything in 2015? It’s also worth reprinting the United Nations assessment of the regularity of the chemical weapons attacks: suffice to say that having Assad agree to ‘destroy’ his chemical weapons in 2013 did not stop the litany of atrocities.
Click to expand...
 
RedChip said:
Think this a tad patronising. I am no economist, but surely you do have to fund any investment, don't you? Otherwise, why bother with the budget.
Click to expand...

My point is two-fold

1. I’m fed up of headlines implying that Labours policies are going to hurt ordinary tax payers as if there are no other ways to raise revenue than taxation

2. As I say, if an expenditure in one area saves/creates money in another area, it’s a net positive
 
nickm said:
No, I don't like Corbyn. He's a fecking politician, not Jesus.
Click to expand...


It's strange how people are now 'othered' for disliking a mainstream politician. Odd times. It's something Trump and Corbyn supporters have in common, but each will refuse to see it, in that they see disagreement or dissent as some kind of threat to be attacked. Take this site for instance, full of disdain and criticism of leaders, as is healthy and expected. Criticise Corbyn and it's as if you've just kicked a dying child in the face.
 
Lentwood said:
My point is two-fold

1. I’m fed up of headlines implying that Labours policies are going to hurt ordinary tax payers as if there are no other ways to raise revenue than taxation

2. As I say, if an expenditure in one area saves/creates money in another area, it’s a net positive
Click to expand...

I do think the question of how a new policy is to be funded is a legitimate one; you can't just dismiss it. Either you cut some other service, increase taxes or borrow to 'invest'. The return on the investment will not be immediate.
 
RedChip said:
I do think the question of how a new policy is to be funded is a legitimate one; you can't just dismiss it. Either you cut some other service, increase taxes or borrow to 'invest'. The return on the investment will not be immediate.
Click to expand...

The other thing to bear in mind is the opportunity cost. Maybe giving under 25 years olds free bus travel generates positive ROI (but I'm not sure how you would prove it). But perhaps there's a better/higher ROI use for that money - like educating people. Even if you borrow the money (and therefore add to the already enormous national debt pile), it's not infinite and you have to make choices.
 
25 seems an odd age. Same with the rail card thing, if you're at an age where you may well be in further education and/or not eligible for the full minimum wage then fine but why is a 26 year old less deserving or less financially in need of free/reduced travel than a 25 year old.
 
nickm said:
The other thing to bear in mind is the opportunity cost. Maybe giving under 25 years olds free bus travel generates positive ROI (but I'm not sure how you would prove it). But perhaps there's a better/higher ROI use for that money - like educating people. Even if you borrow the money (and therefore add to the already enormous national debt pile), it's not infinite and you have to make choices.
Click to expand...

It's actually a very obvious positive benefit. Free local travel ensures that youngsters who are undergoing further education or just getting into work and have low incomes as a result are able to get to their place of work/study reliably and reduce the impact that transport costs have on their already extremely low budget. For a youngster on minimum wage or attending college, saving a fiver a day can have a massive effect on their quality of life.
 
Kentonio said:
It's actually a very obvious positive benefit. Free local travel ensures that youngsters who are undergoing further education or just getting into work and have low incomes as a result are able to get to their place of work/study reliably and reduce the impact that transport costs have on their already extremely low budget. For a youngster on minimum wage or attending college, saving a fiver a day can have a massive effect on their quality of life.
Click to expand...

Should there not then be a proviso that you have to either be in education or full-time work in order to qualify?
 
Silva said:
Spoken like a true Tory. "But how do we use this to feck the unemployed"
Click to expand...

Are you 8? I had more grown up discussion about WWF in year 4

Your petulant reaction to anyone who questions a policy is hilarious.
 
Silva said:
yes i am it's why my mind doesn't immediately question how to feck the poor
Click to expand...

Myself and another adult were talking about implementation of a policy.

"YOU'RE A TORY WHO FECKS THE POOR!"

It's comical your shouty angry Wetherspoonsman act
 
Oscie said:
Should there not then be a proviso that you have to either be in education or full-time work in order to qualify?
Click to expand...

Why on earth would you bother? The administration of limiting this to employed would probably outweigh any savings.
 
I've worked in public transport for forty years and I'm strongly in favour of investment and support in providing a good transport system as a public service. Most people will need it at some time in their lives, and if not them then others they depend on will, hospital staff, employees, family, most of society somewhere along the line.

What I don't get is the need to target so much of the necessary subsidy on arbitrary age groups, and strangely decided ones at that. Lots of young people can ill afford transport to education, then again lots of 23 and 24 year-olds will actually have the most disposable income they'll see in decades. Similarly with the over-60/65s, you'd have to be a bit of a twat not to want to help those on state pension alone, but then again many who have a good pension and paid-for house have far more cash for leisure-spending than the average worker does.

I don't get why a 30/40/50 year-old on minimum wage should be paying full fares when others who are much better off get the full subsidy.

In general I'd prefer to see whatever subsidy the nation can afford to be used to create cheaper fares for everyone.
 
Oscie said:
Should there not then be a proviso that you have to either be in education or full-time work in order to qualify?
Click to expand...

Young people are often in the unemployed but searching, or bouncing between low paid or temporary job categories. Unemployed or irregularly employed people are probably the ones who need free local travel the most. It's not like a free bus pass is going to be some amazing gift to the lazy.
 
712 said:
I don't get why a 30/40/50 year-old on minimum wage should be paying full fares when others who are much better off get the full subsidy.

In general I'd prefer to see whatever subsidy the nation can afford to be used to create cheaper fares for everyone.
Click to expand...

Agreed in principle, but look how much abuse the idea gets when its just aimed at the young. Can't see it getting very far as a wider plan. The Daily Mail crowd would trip over themselves to shout it down as a socialist handout to the loafers.
 
Kentonio said:
Young people are often in the unemployed but searching, or bouncing between low paid or temporary job categories. Unemployed or irregularly employed people are probably the ones who need free local travel the most. It's not like a free bus pass is going to be some amazing gift to the lazy.
Click to expand...
Correct, those are most definitely the people who need free local travel. When you’re in either of those categories you just cannot afford the cost of travel yet the unemployed have to visit the Jc every 2 weeks and many of them have to walk there and back again. No joke in our climate.
 
Kentonio said:
Young people are often in the unemployed but searching, or bouncing between low paid or temporary job categories. Unemployed or irregularly employed people are probably the ones who need free local travel the most. It's not like a free bus pass is going to be some amazing gift to the lazy.
Click to expand...

The irregularly employed, more often than not poorly paid as well, form a hefty chunk of society, often ignored by both the left and right in politics. The thing is, very much part of my earlier post, it contains people of all age groups.
 
712 said:
The irregularly employed, more often than not poorly paid as well, form a hefty chunk of society, often ignored by both the left and right in politics. The thing is, very much part of my earlier post, it contains people of all age groups.
Click to expand...

The more complex you make eligibility the harder and more costly, age is a very easy factor to administer.

Besides, its politically easier to sell a support for those just starting out especially when people have children they support than it is for those in need. That's just the sad state of this proud Daily Mail nation.
 
Red Defence said:
Correct, those are most definitely the people who need free local travel. When you’re in either of those categories you just cannot afford the cost of travel yet the unemployed have to visit the Jc every 2 weeks and many of them have to walk there and back again. No joke in our climate.
Click to expand...

It's getting bloody expensive too. I don't usually use buses when I go back the UK, but I went on one recently and a fare that ten years ago used to be about £1-1.25 now costs about £3-3.50. That's one way between my folks village and the town 3 miles away. So anyone unemployed in the village is going to have to find £6-7 every time they have to go for a JSA interview, or accept a job interview. Not exactly easy if you're living on £73.10 a week.
 
712 said:
I've worked in public transport for forty years and I'm strongly in favour of investment and support in providing a good transport system as a public service. Most people will need it at some time in their lives, and if not them then others they depend on will, hospital staff, employees, family, most of society somewhere along the line.

What I don't get is the need to target so much of the necessary subsidy on arbitrary age groups, and strangely decided ones at that. Lots of young people can ill afford transport to education, then again lots of 23 and 24 year-olds will actually have the most disposable income they'll see in decades. Similarly with the over-60/65s, you'd have to be a bit of a twat not to want to help those on state pension alone, but then again many who have a good pension and paid-for house have far more cash for leisure-spending than the average worker does.

I don't get why a 30/40/50 year-old on minimum wage should be paying full fares when others who are much better off get the full subsidy.

In general I'd prefer to see whatever subsidy the nation can afford to be used to create cheaper fares for everyone.
Click to expand...
Aside from helping people who struggle with transport costs, if local bus services were made free for everyone it would significantly lower the towns pollution, so everyone regardless of whether they live a minute away from work or the other side of town would have cleaner air and less traffic. It's good for people from every possible angle.
 
Silva said:
Aside from helping people who struggle with transport costs, if local bus services were made free for everyone it would significantly lower the towns pollution, so everyone regardless of whether they live a minute away from work or the other side of town would have cleaner air and less traffic. It's good for people from every possible angle.
Click to expand...

True. A good and affordable public transport system brings huge benefits all round.
 
esmufc07 said:
I think the bureaucracy and costs of setting up a means tested system would outweigh any savings made.
Click to expand...

True. It will make it harder for those who need to get to work to do so on the basis that presumably the buses will be fuller earlier meaning that people normally guaranteed a seat may have to stand or wait for the next one. If this is to help the U25s to college/work then it'll have to start before the OAP free buses do and as soon as that kicks in good luck getting a seat. Otherwise it's only really going to benefit those who start work after 10, which will be some but probably not the vast majority.


Local bus services should be returned, in part, to the local authorities. Around here it's terrible, whole parts of the town are cut off after 5pm at night because it's not economically viable for the bus companies to service those areas. Also there's very little choice, we have two major companies and they carve up the town between them. There is no choice between company A or company B anywhere as each route is only served by one company.
 
712 said:
I've worked in public transport for forty years and I'm strongly in favour of investment and support in providing a good transport system as a public service. Most people will need it at some time in their lives, and if not them then others they depend on will, hospital staff, employees, family, most of society somewhere along the line.

What I don't get is the need to target so much of the necessary subsidy on arbitrary age groups, and strangely decided ones at that. Lots of young people can ill afford transport to education, then again lots of 23 and 24 year-olds will actually have the most disposable income they'll see in decades. Similarly with the over-60/65s, you'd have to be a bit of a twat not to want to help those on state pension alone, but then again many who have a good pension and paid-for house have far more cash for leisure-spending than the average worker does.

I don't get why a 30/40/50 year-old on minimum wage should be paying full fares when others who are much better off get the full subsidy.

In general I'd prefer to see whatever subsidy the nation can afford to be used to create cheaper fares for everyone.
Click to expand...
That would be a much better policy.
 
Kentonio said:
It's getting bloody expensive too. I don't usually use buses when I go back the UK, but I went on one recently and a fare that ten years ago used to be about £1-1.25 now costs about £3-3.50. That's one way between my folks village and the town 3 miles away. So anyone unemployed in the village is going to have to find £6-7 every time they have to go for a JSA interview, or accept a job interview. Not exactly easy if you're living on £73.10 a week.
Click to expand...
Met a man a while back who had to walk there and back to the library every day to do his JC instructed daily internet search for jobs. He didn’t have a computer of any kind at home. It was snowing that day and he arrived freezing cold, having only had a carrot for breakfast because that was the only food he had. The unemployed should be definitely given free travel imo.
 
Kentonio said:
Agreed in principle, but look how much abuse the idea gets when its just aimed at the young. Can't see it getting very far as a wider plan. The Daily Mail crowd would trip over themselves to shout it down as a socialist handout to the loafers.
Click to expand...

yes they would.
But you know what the answer to that is?
Ignore the twats and try and get it sorted anyway
 
Dobba said:
Click to expand...


It is a legitimate question.

But so is whether it's right to bomb Russia because of their involvement in Syria or Ukraine or elsewhere.

Or North Korea for their appalling humanitarian treatment of it's own citizens.

Or any other rogue state for that matter.

The difference with Assad is the use of chemical weapons which is a red line and has been since WWI.

Corbyn is a pacifist - always has been. As JRM says he should just declare that fact as he has the right to be one.

However, the upshot of that would rightly be his ability to run the country given that the first duty of any government is to protect it's citizens.

He knows this and that is why the messages he sends out are so flakey.
 
Honest John said:
It is a legitimate question.

But so is whether it's right to bomb Russia because of their involvement in Syria or Ukraine or elsewhere.

Or North Korea for their appalling humanitarian treatment of it's own citizens.

Or any other rogue state for that matter.

The difference with Assad is the use of chemical weapons which is a red line and has been since WWI.

Corbyn is a pacifist - always has been. As JRM says he should just declare that fact as he has the right to be one.

However, the upshot of that would rightly be his ability to run the country given that the first duty of any government is to protect it's citizens.

He knows this and that is why the messages he sends out are so flakey.
Click to expand...
Very well then.

How about when the Israelis used white phosphorus on the Palestinians? Or when the Yanks used depleted uranium in Fallujah, the effects of which are still being seen today in Iraqi newborn babies (which Raoul himself diligently said to ''get over it"). Or heck didn't the Russians allegedly use a chemical agent on British soil? Did the RAF line up their jets to to bomb Tel Aviv, DC or Moscow? Did they feck.

Let's be honest, this has nothing to do with chemical weapons and drawing lines.

Edit: Just noticed you started the clock at WWI. If that's the case you may be horrified to learn who's been the biggest users of chemical weaponry since.
 
berbatrick said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange#Vietnamese_people

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26...rove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/

More a squiggle than a red line. And that's without getting into incendiaries that burn peope alive (napalm, white P)
Click to expand...

Yes I agree. There have been all manner of uses of chemicals and nasty stuff. Because nothing was done before does not mean that nothing should be done now. The UN should be the place to sort this stuff but it's constitution makes it largely impotent. So what is to be done? Nothing? Do we just let these civil wars play out allowing whatever means a state or faction has at it's disposal to be deployed in order to win?

Maybe we need to wipe out a few million from time to time - like pruning roses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.