next labour leader

Crono said:
Corbyn is himself a socialist, but he certainly isn't running on a socialist platform here, nor would he in a general election. He is promising social democracy, which New Labour essentially gave up on and which is why even some of the right-wing of the old Labour Party were so critical of the shift.

As @Rams pointed out quite correctly, many countries in Europe in particular have had lasting social-democratic legacies to this day which give the working man and woman a higher standard of living than the British. Germany, France, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland etc. It's a complete fallacy to suggest that since the British Labour Party abandoned it, it must be because it's not tenable. This is demonstrably false as soon as you take one look outside of this country.
Click to expand...
What kind of policies do you mean here, specifically?

I imagine if Corbyn has the Scandinavian model in mind, support for him may build as people cut through all the scaremongering and judge him on his actions. Even a lot of people who would consider themselves natural Tories would be happy if we could wave a magic wand and end up being a replica of Sweden.
 
Adebesi said:
What kind of policies do you mean here, specifically?

I imagine if Corbyn has the Scandinavian model in mind, support for him may build as people cut through all the scaremongering and judge him on his actions. Even a lot of people who would consider themselves natural Tories would be happy if we could wave a magic wand and end up being a replica of Sweden.
Click to expand...
Id be happier if he could wave a magic wand and get us oil reserves / revenues like Norway
 
sun_tzu said:
but will people actually want to pay for it?

These tax rates apply to single people with no children, on an average salary for their country.
  • Belgium- 42.80%
  • Germany - 39.90%
  • Denmark - 38.90%
  • Hungary- 35%
  • Austria -34%
  • Greece - 25.4%
  • OECD Average - 25.10%
  • UK - 24.90%
Click to expand...

That's a fair question but also a very different one to "can it work?"

sun_tzu said:
Its absolutely crazy... the blair years were the longest sustained perios of labour government and whilst Iraq was ultimately too divisive an issue and the infighting between blair / brown loyalists became seemingy more important than fighting the actual opposition it should be remembered how much they achieved.

since 1945 election labour has won 7 victories (3 of them blair) only on 4 occasions since 1945 have they had majorities in double figures (3 of them blair)

In fact since England won the world cup the only labour leader to deliver a double figure majority has been Blair.

Yet some people want to distance themselves from the centrist policies of the Blair era... well thats fair enough but when it comes to 2020 it will be over 45 years since any labour leader other than Blair won an election and there have been plenty of more left wing options who got smashed in the polls in that period so when it happens again perhaps they will finally learn the lesson history is screaming at them - you win elections from the centre ground!
Click to expand...

That's completely irrelevant, and clearly another fallacy. The centrist party just got absolutely annihilated in May. What does that say about centrism then?
 
Crono said:
That's completely irrelevant, and clearly another fallacy. The centrist party just got absolutely annihilated in May. What does that say about centrism then?
Click to expand...

Im sure you've seen the graph before, but worth reposting.

MarchLeftRight-Leaders4-01.png

Left vs right is relative. Compared to other countries or other time periods, perhaps Miliband could be argued to be centrist. But in the UK, in the current era, not really.
 
So who is everyone voting for? I'm genuinely torn - mainly because they all seem so crap. Probably Burnham as first choice and Corbyn second. Might switch them round just to stir the pot. Corbyn doesn't convince me at all but at least he's interesting. I don't think Labour have much of a chance in the next general election no matter who the leader is.
 
Adebesi said:
What kind of policies do you mean here, specifically?

I imagine if Corbyn has the Scandinavian model in mind, support for him may build as people cut through all the scaremongering and judge him on his actions. Even a lot of people who would consider themselves natural Tories would be happy if we could wave a magic wand and end up being a replica of Sweden.
Click to expand...

Specific policies that we could introduce in the UK you mean?

I don't know if a lot of middle-class Tories would be happy about paying significantly more in taxes so that other people could live more like them.

bishblaize said:
Im sure you've seen the graph before, but worth reposting.

MarchLeftRight-Leaders4-01.png

Left vs right is relative. Compared to other countries or other time periods, perhaps Miliband could be argued to be centrist. But in the UK, in the current era, not really.
Click to expand...

I was talking about the Liberal Democrats.
 
Crono said:
If our interest rates are low due to a plan for deficit/debt reduction why are countries like Italy and Japan able to borrow just as cheaply or even cheaper than us, with much higher debts?
Click to expand...
well thats not actually true you see.
Yes bond yields are lower in Japan and Italy that part is correct but they dont actually have higher debts than us.

As you can see by this very handy table
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt
now I guess the key points are this
Our debt as a % of GDP is 406
Italys is 124%
Japans is 60%

or you could say we owe three and a bit times in more debt than italy or 6 and a bit more than Japan

if you look at it in per capita terms
We owe $160,158 per person
Italy owes $43,621 per person
Japan owes $24,000 per person

Or we owe around 4 times as much per person as Italy or around 6 times as much per person as Japan

so quite clearly we owe the most comparable to our ability to pay back.

This is somewhat compounded by the deficit (not to be confused with debt) we are also running
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_budgets_by_country

UK 17%
Japan 23.5%
Italy 3%

So whilst Japan is running a higher deficit compared to us it would still take generations of overspending to catch up to our levels of indebtedness.

this is why I believe taking on more debt is crazy - and why it would inevitably lead to higher rates

It is also why you are wrong in saying Japan and Italy can borrow at lower rates than us with higher debts.

In fact it is because they have lower debts than us they can borrow at lower rates
 
I fail to see how spending billions of pounds on ideologically driven vanity projects (Plan Corbyn) furthers the interests of the poor. I mean, there you are with 200bn to invest, and the best you can come up with is the re-nationalisation of old industries.


sun_tzu said:
but will people actually want to pay for it?

These tax rates apply to single people with no children, on an average salary for their country.
  • Belgium- 42.80%
  • Germany - 39.90%
  • Denmark - 38.90%
  • Hungary- 35%
  • Austria -34%
  • Greece - 25.4%
  • OECD Average - 25.10%
  • UK - 24.90%
Click to expand...

I very much doubt it. I suspect that many people believe they are being squeezed enough already.
 
Last edited:
Crono said:
Specific policies that we could introduce in the UK you mean?

I don't know if a lot of middle-class Tories would be happy about paying significantly more in taxes so that other people could live more like them.
Click to expand...
I was just wondering which aspects of social democracy specifically you felt New Labour had turned their back on, which Corbyn is now offering, and which are alive and well in those European countries you mentioned.

Id like to think people would be happy to pay higher taxes if they felt they were getting good value for money, as they evidently do in Scandinavia. I would. But then maybe they would not - and history suggests they wouldnt. Which, to go back to my original post, may be why the left, having gone through this process, will find its way back to the "centre ground", or a more Blairite model.
 
sun_tzu said:
well thats not actually true you see.
Yes bond yields are lower in Japan and Italy that part is correct but they dont actually have higher debts than us.

As you can see by this very handy table
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt
now I guess the key points are this
Our debt as a % of GDP is 406
Italys is 124%
Japans is 60%

or you could say we owe three and a bit times in more debt than italy or 6 and a bit more than Japan

if you look at it in per capita terms
We owe $160,158 per person
Italy owes $43,621 per person
Japan owes $24,000 per person

Or we owe around 4 times as much per person as Italy or around 6 times as much per person as Japan

so quite clearly we owe the most comparable to our ability to pay back.

This is somewhat compounded by the deficit (not to be confused with debt) we are also running
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_budgets_by_country

UK 17%
Japan 23.5%
Italy 3%

So whilst Japan is running a higher deficit compared to us it would still take generations of overspending to catch up to our levels of indebtedness.

this is why I believe taking on more debt is crazy - and why it would inevitably lead to higher rates

It is also why you are wrong in saying Japan and Italy can borrow at lower rates than us with higher debts.

In fact it is because they have lower debts than us they can borrow at lower rates
Click to expand...

You're not even looking at the correct chart. "External debt" includes all private debt. We're talking about public debt.

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

We're at 90%, Italy are at 126% and Japan are at 226%.

I note that apart from misunderstanding that entirely, you've totally ignored the rather more clearly evidenced and argued point made by Krugman that I quoted.
 
Crono said:
Specific policies that we could introduce in the UK you mean?

I don't know if a lot of middle-class Tories would be happy about paying significantly more in taxes so that other people could live more like them.

I was talking about the Liberal Democrats.
Click to expand...

Oh I see, apologies.

On your point about the Tories, its important to understand the Tory mindset. Its wrong to claim that Tories are just narrow minded selfish types. We all care the most about the things most pressing to us, and we vote on the matters most important to us. That's true of socialists. A worker and trade union member voting for a party that fights for workers and trade union rights can hardly be called altruism.

The classic Tory target is a house owner, working, paying tax/NI and who has a pension. Right there you have reasons to be interested in interest rates, house value rises, tax and NI levels, long term stock market performance, job creation and employment rates. Classic Tory areas of concern.

Telling Tories that they should pay more tax and vote for a party that considers those issues above of secondary importance is never going to work. However my own experience is that British people are generally a fair bunch. If you give them a choice - 'you benefit' vs 'we all benefit' they'll take the latter. However if you give them a choice between 'you benefit' and 'someone you've never met benefits' then they'll go for the former.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
I fail to see how spending billions of pounds on ideologically driven vanity projects (Plan Corbyn) furthers the interests of the poor. I mean, there you are with 200bn to invest, and the best you can come up with is the re-nationalisation of old industries.
Click to expand...

The UK’s infrastructure is in drastic need of modernization. And the UK has a massive housing shortage. In other words; these projects are not ideologically driven vanity projects. They sure make better sense than pumping billions into the banks. If done properly in turn it will also give the economy a massive boots, provide jobs, take people off welfare and increase tax income; in short cut the debt. Under Corbyn's plans such projects are to be financed by quantative easing, not by borrowing more money.
 
Crono said:
You're not even looking at the correct chart. "External debt" includes all private debt. We're talking about public debt.

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

We're at 90%, Italy are at 126% and Japan are at 226%.
Click to expand...
One difference that gives people comfort in Japan is that the majority of that debt is in the hands of Japanese institutions. Its internal, not (overwhelmingly) held by foreigners, which makes it less systemically risky. That, as I understand it, is why Japan is viewed so differently to other countries that may have less debt.
 
bishblaize said:
Oh I see, apologies.

On your point about the Tories, its important to understand the Tory mindset. Its wrong to claim that Tories are just narrow minded selfish types. We all care the most about the things most pressing to us, and we vote on the matters most important to us. That's true of socialists. A worker and trade union member voting for a party that fights for workers and trade union rights can hardly be called altruism.

The classic Tory target is a house owner, working, paying tax/NI and who has a pension. Right there you have reasons to be interested in interest rates, house value rises, tax and NI levels, long term stock market performance, job creation and employment rates. Classic Tory areas of concern.

Telling Tories that they should pay more tax and vote for a party that considers those issues above of secondary importance is never going to work. However my own experience is that British people are generally a fair bunch. If you give them a choice - 'you benefit' vs 'we all benefit' they'll take the latter. However if you give them a choice between 'you benefit' and 'someone you've never met benefits' then they'll go for the former.
Click to expand...


In Britain the rich are not paying their fair share of taxes. And the welfare system has been far too soft & ineffective because previous governments have refused to invest in an effective system. A recipe for disaster. A fairer and more social society also means people paying the taxes they should and people receiving the welfare they only deserve & need.
 
Adebesi said:
Scandinavia has also found its own way to balance the best aspects of the left and right. It isnt simply about being more socialist than we are in the UK.

http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21570840-nordic-countries-are-reinventing-their-model-capitalism-says-adrian.
Click to expand...

I was on holiday in Sweden recently, and our tour guide remarked upon some of the costs for patients when using the healthcare system in the country:

These look close to the figures he stated:
Patient fees
The fee for a hospital stay is SEK 80 (USD 11, EUR 8) per day for the first ten days, and SEK 60 thereafter. Patient fees for primary care vary between SEK 100 and 200 depending on the county council. For specialist visits, there is an additional fee of a maximum SEK 350.

High-cost ceiling
After a patient has paid a total of between SEK 900 and 1,100 (depending on area of residence) in the course of a year, medical consultations within 12 months of the first consultation are free of charge. There is a similar ceiling for prescription medication, so nobody pays more than SEK 2,200 in a given 12-month period. One exception is Stockholm, where the maximum sum payable is SEK 1,800.

https://sweden.se/society/health-care-in-sweden/
Click to expand...

You know how protective people get about the NHS, would the public be supportive of such drastic changes how inw how the system operates?
 
Last edited:
Rams said:
In Britain the rich are not paying their fair share of taxes. And the welfare system has been far too soft & ineffective because previous governments have refused to invest in an effective system. A recipe for disaster. A fairer and more social society also means people paying the taxes they should and people receiving the welfare they only deserve & need.
Click to expand...
I pay the same tax rate (45%) as higher rate payers in Germany, France (even China) and more than Greece or Italy...

so perhaps the average wage earner with no kids should start making a contribution in line with European countries if they want the same services?

These tax rates apply to single people with no children, on an average salary for their country.
  • Belgium- 42.80%
  • Germany - 39.90%
  • Denmark - 38.90%
  • Hungary- 35%
  • Austria -34%
  • Greece - 25.4%
  • OECD Average - 25.10%
  • UK - 24.90%
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
I was on holiday in Sweden recently, and our tour guide remarked upon some of the costs for patients when using the healthcare system in the country:

These look close to the figures he stated:


You know how protective people get about the NHS, would the public be supportive of such drastic changes to how the system operates?
Click to expand...
Its a max of about £250 a year so perhaps people would be ok with that? - though as you say you may get the its the NHS its free etc etc?
 
sun_tzu said:
I pay the same tax rate (45%) as higher rate payers in Germany, France (even China) and more than Greece or Italy...

so perhaps the average wage earner with no kids should start making a contribution in line with European countries if they want the same services?

These tax rates apply to single people with no children, on an average salary for their country.
  • Belgium- 42.80%
  • Germany - 39.90%
  • Denmark - 38.90%
  • Hungary- 35%
  • Austria -34%
  • Greece - 25.4%
  • OECD Average - 25.10%
  • UK - 24.90%
Click to expand...


Those are average rates. The problem with those stats is that you cannot see the tax rate for the portion of earnings. Those stats say nothing about their fairness.
 
In Holland I'm paying about EUR 1,500 per year for my health insurance, but a much larger amount is taken for the Dutch NHS from the income tax I have to pay. In Germany you pay something like EUR 6,000 for health insurance per year, but I don't think they take any from your income tax. People on low incomes pay far less obviously, if not nothing at all. The health service in Germany and the Netherlands is far far far superior to that of the UK.
 
sun_tzu said:
Its a max of about £250 a year so perhaps people would be ok with that? - though as you say you may get the its the NHS its free etc etc?
Click to expand...
FREE AT THE POINT OF USE.

I dont think anything that challenged that principle would be readily accepted. Not until people had got used to it and seen the benefit of it (if there was one.) Its a sacred cow.
 
Adebesi said:
FREE AT THE POINT OF USE.

I dont think anything that challenged that principle would be readily accepted. Not until people had got used to it and seen the benefit of it (if there was one.) Its a sacred cow.
Click to expand...

This is certainly something I disagree with Corbyn on. The NHS shouldn't be free at the point of use. That needs to be reformed imo! And, a free NHS is also detrimental to the quality of its service.
 
I havent looked back much in this thread but have people debated much about Corbyn's so called antisemitism and love of terrorism? In my Facebook timeline this is the only aspect of his candidacy that is discussed at all, though this is mainly because of one specific person who posts about 5 things a day about it, and clearly sees it in rather black and white terms.

I find it all quite baffling personally. People criticise him for links to the IRA but wasnt it precisely the fact that we engaged with them that allowed us to move forward with the peace process in Ireland? Therefore, does it not follow that engaging with unpleasant elements in the Middle East is necessary if we are going to find a solution?

Or do people think he has crossed a line, and actually hates Jews, and loves people who blow them up?
 
Adebesi said:
I havent looked back much in this thread but have people debated much about Corbyn's so called antisemitism and love of terrorism? In my Facebook timeline this is the only aspect of his candidacy that is discussed at all, though this is mainly because of one specific person who posts about 5 things a day about it, and clearly sees it in rather black and white terms.

I find it all quite baffling personally. People criticise him for links to the IRA but wasnt it precisely the fact that we engaged with them that allowed us to move forward with the peace process in Ireland? Therefore, does it not follow that engaging with unpleasant elements in the Middle East is necessary if we are going to find a solution?

Or do people think he has crossed a line, and actually hates Jews, and loves people who blow them up?
Click to expand...

People think that says something about Corbyn's judgement. I mean for example David 'Andy Coulson' Cameron would never make such errors in judgement.
 
Rams said:
The UK’s infrastructure is in drastic need of modernization. And the UK has a massive housing shortage. In other words; these projects are not ideologically driven vanity projects. They sure make better sense than pumping billions into the banks. If done properly in turn it will also give the economy a massive boots, provide jobs, take people off welfare and increase tax income; in short cut the debt. Under Corbyn's plans such projects are to be financed by quantative easing, not by borrowing more money.
Click to expand...

Corbyn would have greater credibility if he simply said: "I am going to make it possible for every residential property in the UK to have a solar panel by the end of the decade (save for those where planning/conservations laws preclude such), not only reducing costs but devolving production for all Britons."

Instead...He wishes to engage in a costly and unwieldy re-nationalisation of the entire sector. As i accused him of earlier in the thread, no finesse. The expense doesn't end at bringing these companies into public ownership , he he explained to the voters that everyday taxes would have to increase for their ongoing management and maintenance?

Yes we could do with more housing stock, but then every government has attempted to solve that one. I have not heard anything revolutionary from Corbyn in this regard.
 
Last edited:
Adebesi said:
I havent looked back much in this thread but have people debated much about Corbyn's so called antisemitism and love of terrorism? In my Facebook timeline this is the only aspect of his candidacy that is discussed at all, though this is mainly because of one specific person who posts about 5 things a day about it, and clearly sees it in rather black and white terms.

I find it all quite baffling personally. People criticise him for links to the IRA but wasnt it precisely the fact that we engaged with them that allowed us to move forward with the peace process in Ireland? Therefore, does it not follow that engaging with unpleasant elements in the Middle East is necessary if we are going to find a solution?

Or do people think he has crossed a line, and actually hates Jews, and loves people who blow them up?
Click to expand...

Even his biggest detractors think he associates far too closely with antisemites rather than being one himself. The "friends at Hezbollah" comment will probably dog him for as long as he is Labour party leader, people aren't keen on context at the best of times, let alone on such a sensitive issue as the Middle East.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
Corbyn would have greater credibility if he simply said: "I am going to make it possible for every residential property in the UK to have a solar panel by the end of the decade (save for those where planning/conservations laws preclude such), not only reducing costs but devolving production for all Britons."

Instead...He wishes to engage in a costly and unwieldy re-nationalisation of the entire sector. As i accused him of earlier in the thread, no finesse. The expense doesn't end at bringing these companies into public ownership , he he explained to the voters that everyday taxes would have to increase for their ongoing management and maintenance?

Yes we could do with more housing stock, but then every government has attempted to solve that one. I have not heard anything revolutionary from Corbyn in this regard.
Click to expand...

What does Corbyn want to nationalise exactly? In terms revolutionary idea's; I think Corbyn admits himself taht none of his idea's are revolutionary. The only thing Corbyn seems to want to revolutionalise is they way politics are carried out in the UK.
 
Rams said:
What does Corbyn want to nationalise exactly? In terms revolutionary idea's; I think Corbyn admits himself taht none of his idea's are revolutionary. The only thing Corbyn seems to want to revolutionalise is they way politics are carried out in the UK.
Click to expand...
train operators and utility companies so far I think - oh and royal mail perhaps?
 
sun_tzu said:
train operators and utility companies so far I think - oh and royal mail perhaps?
Click to expand...

Royal Mail is almost obsolete.

I think that nationalised train operators and utility companies sound less daft then having a free at the point of use NHS.
 
Rams said:
Royal Mail is almost obsolete.

I think that nationalised train operators and utility companies sound less daft then having a free at the point of use NHS.
Click to expand...
its the cost though... power companies are currently making around 3.5% net profits and it would cost around 185bn to buy controlling interests in them similarly train operator margins are very thin as well.
If we were running huge a budget surplus and had minimal debt then perhaps it would be worth looking at then but to issue a government bond (currently 2.55% yield on a 30 year bond) would essentially mean instead of paying private companies a small profit margin we ended up paying similar profits to investment funds and foreign governments upon bond maturity - with the added problem that when they were in public hands before we never invested in them and let the infrastructure go to ruin as it was an easy way to save money.
 
Adebesi said:
A bit off topic but I was watching a documentary the other night that said ISPs are the Royal Mail of the current age, and that they should be nationalised.
Click to expand...
Almost all the physical infrastructure belongs to BT I think (other than virgin who have their own optic network) - if anybody remembers the weeks it used to take to get a phone line in - let alone fix a problem and they still want that nationalised I'd be shocked.

Not sure what 5G connected speeds will be like but it would possibly make the fixed lines redundant anyway so would be daft to spend much nationalising it - or do we then nationalise all the mobile operators as well?
 
sun_tzu said:
its the cost though... power companies are currently making around 3.5% net profits and it would cost around 185bn to buy controlling interests in them similarly train operator margins are very thin as well.
If we were running huge a budget surplus and had minimal debt then perhaps it would be worth looking at then but to issue a government bond (currently 2.55% yield on a 30 year bond) would essentially mean instead of paying private companies a small profit margin we ended up paying similar profits to investment funds and foreign governments upon bond maturity - with the added problem that when they were in public hands before we never invested in them and let the infrastructure go to ruin as it was an easy way to save money.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying we should now start nationalising train operators or utility companies. But there is an argument to say they should have never been privatised in the first place. Having nationalised utility companies makes far more sense then, for example, having nationalised banks.

...errr... hang on.... the irony...
 
sun_tzu said:
Almost all the physical infrastructure belongs to BT I think (other than virgin who have their own optic network) - if anybody remembers the weeks it used to take to get a phone line in - let alone fix a problem and they still want that nationalised I'd be shocked.

Not sure what 5G connected speeds will be like but it would possibly make the fixed lines redundant anyway so would be daft to spend much nationalising it - or do we then nationalise all the mobile operators as well?
Click to expand...
Well the case for nationalising the ISPs wasnt so much an economic one as a privacy / anti corporatocracy one. The idea that corporates are monitoring our online lives and selling that data or using it to control us. I dont know whether the argument was that governments wouldnt do this, couldnt do this (because of their ineptitude) or it would be less harmful if they did do it, but that was the real argument: the excessive concentration of power in the hands of unelected institutions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.