75 minutes (politics)

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Wed Sep 27, 2017 5:55 pm

Anyone watch Jeremy Corbyn's speech? Apparently he spoke for 75 minutes. I lasted about 60 mins, a little after he'd dealt with all the hurricanes and earthquakes in a "united world" (only because I had something else to do).

I missed the "red flag." How many minutes "oh, Jeremy Corbyn" did he get? There was already, maybe a couple of minutes at the start.

And, Happy Birthday, Diane Abbott, 64 today.

dpinsussex · Post by **dpinsussex** » Wed Sep 27, 2017 5:57 pm

Thankfully no

Tbf i couldnt listen to any politician for that long

Foshiznik · Post by **Foshiznik** » Wed Sep 27, 2017 6:16 pm

Isn't it time we mentioned the war now?

HatfieldClaret · Post by **HatfieldClaret** » Wed Sep 27, 2017 6:23 pm

"And, Happy Birthday, Diane Abbott, 64 today."

Sorry she's just corrected it, she's 46.

Hang on she's corrected it again, she's 106.

No, wait....can she get back to you on that one ?

tiger76 · Post by **tiger76** » Wed Sep 27, 2017 11:08 pm

No! like most other people i was out earning a wage,i feel sorry for the naive Corbynistas,if Labour manage to get a majority at the next election, they are going to be disappointed when a lot of the policies are ditched for being unaffordable,for example re-nationalising the PFI contracts, i agree these contracts are one of the Blair Government's worst legacies, but if the 200 billion figure is accurate, then savings will have to fall on other departments,or tax revenues will have to increase drastically. FWIW i don't have much faith in the current administration either, for the first time since 2005 i am seriously considering spoiling my ballot.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 12:13 am

tiger76 wrote:No! like most other people i was out earning a wage,i feel sorry for the naive Corbynistas,if Labour manage to get a majority at the next election, they are going to be disappointed when a lot of the policies are ditched for being unaffordable,for example re-nationalising the PFI contracts, i agree these contracts are one of the Blair Government's worst legacies, but if the 200 billion figure is accurate, then savings will have to fall on other departments,or tax revenues will have to increase drastically. FWIW i don't have much faith in the current administration either, for the first time since 2005 i am seriously considering spoiling my ballot.

Hi tiger, I'm just about done on my earning, so a little spare time to watch Corbyn. I don't remember any Labour politician being "so far to the left," though maybe Michael Foot gave it a bit of a go.

Kinda interesting: Corbyn/McDonnell criticise PFI, say that there were many errors in the contracts. They also say that they will renationalise "utilities" by issuing government bonds. I guess they don't know that the PFI contracts were "negotiated" by the civil servants, because Blair/Brown wanted lots of new school buildings and new hospital buildings. Do they plan to use the same civil servants to run the water, elec, gas companies?

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 6:20 am

Then raise the scarlet standard high
Beneath its folds we'll live and die
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer
We'll keep the red flag flying here

Chobulous · Post by **Chobulous** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:12 am

I was happy to see that the conference ended with the singing of the Red Flag. That has always been the anthem of the Labour Party. It was a disgrace that it was ditched for a time during the Blair years.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:21 am

He's got a clear run at being UK PM as the Conservatives do their best to do a Venkys with Blackburn with the country.

Worth bearing in mind that though I'm not a fan of Corbyn, he's not as left wing as most of you appear to think he is, certainly not by the standards of European countries.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:38 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Worth bearing in mind that though I'm not a fan of Corbyn, he's not as left wing as most of you appear to think he is, certainly not by the standards of European countries.

You're absolutely right.

He's even more left wing than that.

Is it pledges accounting to £312 billion so far?

All before the country has even started paying off the debt wracked up by the last Labour incumbent?

If Corbyn gets in it will be financial disaster for the UK and the ensuing meltdown will make the "austerity" of recent years look like a time of glorious free spending.

tybfc · Post by **tybfc** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:50 am

Rowls wrote:You're absolutely right.

He's even more left wing than that.

Is it pledges accounting to £312 billion so far?

All before the country has even started paying off the debt wracked up by the last Labour incumbent?

If Corbyn gets in it will be financial disaster for the UK and the ensuing meltdown will make the "austerity" of recent years look like a time of glorious free spending.

I noticed he sang loud and proud to the Red flag but seems to have forgotten the words of the National Anthem.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:11 am

He's going to get in unless the Conservatives get their act together.

But "getting their act together" means having a consensus on Europe, and thats not likely.

Caballo · Post by **Caballo** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:29 am

I particularly enjoyed the bits where swathes of PLP members were patting him on the back after twice trying off him. You could be forgiven for thinking that they were running scared of imminent deselection now the momentum crowd are getting a grip.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:30 am

We live in a country where the choices are effectively between John McDonnell and Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Ace.

Caballo · Post by **Caballo** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:33 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:We live in a country where the choices are effectively between John McDonnell and Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Ace.

Can't believe in the face of that the LibDems are unable to make headway. They may as well call it a day!

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:41 am

Caballo wrote:Can't believe in the face of that the LibDems are unable to make headway. They may as well call it a day!

Too early yet,but by the time of the next Gen Election we could quite foreseeably see a centre left pro-European alliance storm through between a divided left and right.
It just needs a "Macron" to come along.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:46 am

Old people with cash and lots of ideas that are out of date will vote Tory

Young people with no cash, no future and not much hope of one will vote Labour

There isn't a lot of room for the Lib Dems, especially as Labour continue to swing towards a pro-EU stance as they realise that their members want it.

The last election showed that the voters worried about immigration still don't trust the Tories at all, so if the current trend continues, and more and more evidence of a "hard brexit" being a disaster, then Lab could well win a landslide.

Lib Dems will do OK under Cable, but not well enough to bother either side.*

* the young have to vote in numbers again though, and as long as that happens, Lab have got this one sewn up.

Chobulous · Post by **Chobulous** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:01 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Old people with cash and lots of ideas that are out of date will vote Tory

Young people with no cash, no future and not much hope of one will vote Labour

There isn't a lot of room for the Lib Dems, especially as Labour continue to swing towards a pro-EU stance as they realise that their members want it.

The last election showed that the voters worried about immigration still don't trust the Tories at all, so if the current trend continues, and more and more evidence of a "hard brexit" being a disaster, then Lab could well win a landslide.

Lib Dems will do OK under Cable, but not well enough to bother either side.*

* the young have to vote in numbers again though, and as long as that happens, Lab have got this one sewn up.

That's the problem though isn't it. Their members might want it but their members in no way reflect the electorate or even what Labour has traditionally seen as their core vote as a whole.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:04 am

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:09 am

Like everything, there has to be a balance, and at the moment both Lab and the Cons don't have one.

kindonyes · Post by **kindonyes** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:09 am

I saw Jeremy's speech - I agreed with nearly everything he said - if he gets in we're going to have more equality, more fairness, more housing, more healthcare, more teaching, more free education, more justice,no nasty business people, higher wages for all, more care for the elderly and I may be wrong but I think he's intending to put a stop to hurricanes and tsunamis once he's introduced world peace.
All this will apparently be funded by taxing Philip Green a bit more.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:17 am

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:41 am

That's the problem though isn't it. Their members might want it but their members in no way reflect the electorate or even what Labour has traditionally seen as their core vote as a whole.

Already answered it, but dislike of the tories triumphed over dislike of immigration in the last GE.

No reason that will change

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:49 am

The Labour Party has become less centrist and more democratic. New ideas, introduced by ordinary members, are being considered and debated. This is very positive.

The nationalisation of utilities makes a lot of sense when considered against the fact companies currently running them are often accused of ripping consumers off and not investing enough. The same goes for railway companies. Likewise we need more housing, public sector workers deserve more pay, councils and services need to be funded appropriately, and rich people aren't going to go hungry in having to pay more tax.

The Tories have spent the last seven years cutting brutally, while seeing the debt balloon. They've handed out tens of billions in tax breaks to rich people without any great boost to the economy. Their ideas have plainly not worked, and it's time they stepped aside.

Caballo · Post by **Caballo** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 12:57 pm

Where are getting the money from? Despite the 'brutal cuts' we as a nation still ran a deficit of £58 billion last year. I agree that infrastructure shouldn't be in private hands, particularly overseas private hands but if we were minded to compulsorily purchase these assets we simply can't.

northernpowerhouse · Post by **northernpowerhouse** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:03 pm

Nationalising the railways doesn't cost anything. We just wait for the franchises to expire and then take them over.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:45 pm

If it be your will wrote:Whether or not they are re-nationalised, the PFI debacle has proved, beyond doubt, that the private sector cannot supply and safely manage good quality public buildings at a reasonable cost. I know the political orthodoxy of the last 30 years has been 'The state is useless at doing anything', but it's now obvious - for public buildings at least - the private sector has performed considerably worse.

Hi iibyw, why do you say that "private sector has performed considerably worse" with respect to constructing and maintaining public buildings?

I bet you anything (will we still be allowed to "bet" under JC?) that it was something like this:

Tony Blair says "we need to build some new schools and new hospitals," Gordon Brown says "but, I don't want to spend taxpayers money on construction." "Let's ask the private sector to construct them" and "let's also ask them to maintain them." "That sounds like a great idea, because, if the private sector is responsible for maintenance it will encourage them not to take short-cuts in construction,"

But, we are going to need a contract with them, agree how much they spend on construction and agree how much we will pay for each maintenance item. "Does that also mean we need to have the specifications ready before the contract is signed?" "Well, maybe it's best that we do, but we haven't got the time to do that, so let's just agree a generic standard, and we can fill in all the gaps as we go along. "But, won't that mean that there will be a lot of extra costs?" "Well, yes, but it will be 5-10 years before anyone notices, We can leave those for another government to sort out...." ("And, the taxpayers won't know the difference). OK, let's give it a go....

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:48 pm

PFI was a tory invention

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 3:00 pm

UpTheBeehole wrote:PFI was a tory invention

Agree, and John McDonnell only mentioned John Major when he spoke of PFI. Of course, it would be interesting to see a split between Conservative and Labour governments in the PFI contracts that were awarded. There's probably nothing wrong with PFI, it's just a "design, build and maintain" agreement, but do any of us think that Blair/Brown had the very best civil service brains drawing up the contracts and making sure that everything would be alright 5, 10, 15 years after construction was complete?

Caballo · Post by **Caballo** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 3:21 pm

UpTheBeehole wrote:PFI was a tory invention

Very true, although compared to the Blair then subsequently Brown administrations the were playing at it, I particularly liked the bit where they lent treasury money to the PFI companies to charge us interest on what they built using our money, brilliant!

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 6:42 pm

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:02 pm

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:23 pm

If it be your will wrote:I didn't answer this bit did I?

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... -for-money" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Unbelievable - laughably bad, was PFI. A perfect example of misplaced faith in markets and private efficiency.

Thanks for finding that C4 report, iibyw. It confirms what I could only guess at, Gordon Brown and Labour were all over the PFI deals. I think the C4 report makes my point: don't expect the public sector (civil service) to get anything right when they are spending taxpayers money.

I had a tiny, tiny, bit of experience in the early 1980s, representing my private sector employer in a maintenance contract with a public sector organisation. In this case the private sector were the buyer of the services and the public sector were the provider of the maintenance. Yes, I saw the "£500 hammer" even in the 1980s. It's all to do with the way the public sector don't understand costs and how to structure a contract.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:38 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Hi tiger, I'm just about done on my earning, so a little spare time to watch Corbyn. I don't remember any Labour politician being "so far to the left," though maybe Michael Foot gave it a bit of a go.

Kinda interesting: Corbyn/McDonnell criticise PFI, say that there were many errors in the contracts. They also say that they will renationalise "utilities" by issuing government bonds. I guess they don't know that the PFI contracts were "negotiated" by the civil servants, because Blair/Brown wanted lots of new school buildings and new hospital buildings. Do they plan to use the same civil servants to run the water, elec, gas companies?

Hi Paul

I disagree with the bit in bold. I think Corbyn just seems more left wing since the Overton window has moved way over to the right.

He's certainly more left wing than New Labour were, but pretty standard for what Labour used to be, imo.

I believe you have a few years on me, so I'm probably considering a shorter timeframe than you were (I'm no political historian).

bluelabrador16 · Post by **bluelabrador16** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:57 pm

Paul Waine

"...There's probably nothing wrong with PFI...."

2016...PFI deals will cost taxpayers £209bn over next 35 years

."By the time the PFI contracts have all been paid off – in 2049/50 – they will have cost £307bn in total, according to new figures released by the Treasury last month. This is more than five times the £57bn the assets are actually worth."

Frances O’Grady, General Secretary of the TUC

“PFIs are a massive rip off. Schools, hospitals and many other public bodies have been left with crippling debts they’ll still be paying back decades from now. At a time when frontline services are buckling under the strain of government cuts, PFIs are siphoning off precious resources.”

She added: “With the cost of government borrowing at an all-time low, it makes no sense to continue with these disastrous contracts. PFIs are quite simply the worst mortgages in the world.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 66986.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Private companies make £831m profits from NHS contracts

https://www.ft.com/content/71201382-8cd ... c17942ba93" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Time for a "windfall tax"!

I'm sure the Bankers were delighted with "PFI".

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:11 pm

Crikey, I’ve just seem this thread and the comment leaped out at me about Corbyn not being as left wing as we think.

Bearing in mind we are in the era of media spin, Labour still being experts at this, I suspect some folk are in for a rude awakening (especially those who think that the worst thing that can happen to you is the impact of Brexit, not being able to afford a house, or stagnating real terms wages for 10 years).

Deep down, I think Corbyn is wedded to deeply held beliefs that he can’t change now. Not that he is the most dangerous man in the country - that’s McDonnell.

I deeply hope a Tory boots May out and sells to the nation a view of how capitalism can be done fairly and can share growing wealth fairly, but with asset prices in the bubble that they are, and housing / university unaffordable, I cannot see it happening. Corbyn it is.

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:14 pm

On the PFI deal thing, I’ve written business cases for half a dozen of them, and it is all well and good, but given the state of the NHS capital budget 10-20 years ago if we didn't do it somehow we would now have a scandal about many more people dying unnecessarily in Victorian acute hospital buildings that are falling down amongst them.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:16 pm

Greenmile wrote:Hi Paul

I disagree with the bit in bold. I think Corbyn just seems more left wing since the Overton window has moved way over to the right.

He's certainly more left wing than New Labour were, but pretty standard for what Labour used to be, imo.

I believe you have a few years on me, so I'm probably considering a shorter timeframe than you were (I'm no political historian).

Hi Greenmile, I was growing up when Harold Wilson became premier for the first time, 1964. (Started going on t'Turf, regularly, Oct-1967, wow, 50 years a Claret). There were "hard left" themes in Wilson's cabinet, as there were in Callaghan's in late 1970s, but it was a time when economics still believed in Keynes. It was only through these periods that "left wing" policies were proved not to work, they weren't helping the economy to grow, they weren't making the working class any wealthier, or our life chances any better. In 1979 these policies were rejected by the UK electorate. Of course, there were "hold-outs" including Scargill and the NUM, Militant in Liverpool and the old Greater London Council (GLC) - I understand John McDonnell was involved in the GLC.

The UK has a structural problem: (1) too much "current" expenditure has been "kicked into the future" - PFI is an example, public sector pensions are another, but the future is now, so a lot of "current" expenditure is paying for things that were "bought" in the past; (2) the tax base is much too thin and narrow - why does everyone appear to believe that only the "top 5% should pay taxes" (I exaggerate, of course), all the electorate should have a stake in the payment of taxes, not just the way the taxes are spent. everyone should understand that they will be making a personal contribution when they demand the government spends more money. Anyway, I've written before how I would reorganise the UK political and economic system. I'm sure we would be better off if the politicians understood these issues.

Edit: In terms of Corbyn's politics, suggest we look at Venezuela and the socialist path that Chavez/Maduro followed and which JC praised so much.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:04 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:He's going to get in unless the Conservatives get their act together.
But "getting their act together" means having a consensus on Europe, and thats not likely.

You're possibly right.

But the flaws of Socialism (especially the ideologically pure variety espoused by Corbyn and McDonnell) are so evident then perhaps even a half decent manifesto and election campaign would convince people not to vote Corbyn.

Neither of these things happened at the last election.

Theresa May's manifesto was virtually indistinguishable from Ed Milliband's. It must be unique in British politics - the party who won the previous election chose -for some reason- to ape the failed manifesto of their prior, defeated opponents.

All the evidence stacks up against Socialism and for free trade and the rule of law (AKA Capitalism).

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:19 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Hi Greenmile, I was growing up when Harold Wilson became premier for the first time, 1964. (Started going on t'Turf, regularly, Oct-1967, wow, 50 years a Claret). There were "hard left" themes in Wilson's cabinet, as there were in Callaghan's in late 1970s, but it was a time when economics still believed in Keynes. It was only through these periods that "left wing" policies were proved not to work, they weren't helping the economy to grow, they weren't making the working class any wealthier, or our life chances any better. In 1979 these policies were rejected by the UK electorate. Of course, there were "hold-outs" including Scargill and the NUM, Militant in Liverpool and the old Greater London Council (GLC) - I understand John McDonnell was involved in the GLC.

The UK has a structural problem: (1) too much "current" expenditure has been "kicked into the future" - PFI is an example, public sector pensions are another, but the future is now, so a lot of "current" expenditure is paying for things that were "bought" in the past; (2) the tax base is much too thin and narrow - why does everyone appear to believe that only the "top 5% should pay taxes" (I exaggerate, of course), all the electorate should have a stake in the payment of taxes, not just the way the taxes are spent. everyone should understand that they will be making a personal contribution when they demand the government spends more money. Anyway, I've written before how I would reorganise the UK political and economic system. I'm sure we would be better off if the politicians understood these issues.

Edit: In terms of Corbyn's politics, suggest we look at Venezuela and the socialist path that Chavez/Maduro followed and which JC praised so much.

Couldn't one replace "left wing" with "right wing" in the bold bit above and apply it to the last seven years?

It seems a bit of a sweeping statement to suggest that "left wing" policies were ever "proved not to work", unless those quote marks you use are doing a bit more heavy lifting than is immediately apparent. Same applies to "right wing" policies too, of course.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:30 pm

Caballo wrote:Where are getting the money from? Despite the 'brutal cuts' we as a nation still ran a deficit of £58 billion last year. I agree that infrastructure shouldn't be in private hands, particularly overseas private hands but if we were minded to compulsorily purchase these assets we simply can't.

Where does the money come from? Labour are talking about issuing bonds, but there are probably many creative ways of doing it. And each case could be dealt with in its own special way. Macquarie bought Thames Water some years back, and then loaded the organisation down with debt - effectively paying off what they borrowed to buy Thames Water by mortgaging Thames Waters' assets. Macquarie paid out big dividends on the back of this 'windfall'. On top of this Thames Waters hiked their charge in order to buy property to build a new sewer. Would it be fair to say this is owned by Thames Water (and therefore we have to buy it back as part of the nationalisation), or could we consider it as already owned by the taxpayer? Likewise with the debt, which they used to write off against taxable income, do we pay for that too as part of the nationalisation; or do we push through an act of parliament which says 'this is ours now, and this is what you get for it? In my opinion, we should be fair in how we buy all this back, but in the case of companies that have taken the P, there's no reason for us to not to tell them how it's going to be.

And we can do this because we've 'taken back control' - which a majority of people in the UK recently voted for.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:40 pm

Rowls wrote:You're possibly right.

But the flaws of Socialism (especially the ideologically pure variety espoused by Corbyn and McDonnell) are so evident then perhaps even a half decent manifesto and election campaign would convince people not to vote Corbyn.

Neither of these things happened at the last election.

Theresa May's manifesto was virtually indistinguishable from Ed Milliband's. It must be unique in British politics - the party who won the previous election chose -for some reason- to ape the failed manifesto of their prior, defeated opponents.

All the evidence stacks up against Socialism and for free trade and the rule of law (AKA Capitalism).

Seems a bit binary to me. Largely socialist countries like in Scandinavia seem to do alright (although ClaretMoffit will be along soon to tell me how Sweden is full of Muslims raping everyone, no doubt, because he saw it on Breitbart or YouTube) and things like the welfare state and consumer regulations are vital to a successful society, imo, as unfettered capitalism can be hugely harmful.

For clarity, I am inclined to agree that ideologically pure socialism would probably never work (though I'm less inclined to accept that this is what a Corbyn-led government would bring us), but the same is true of ideologically pure capitalism. I think a mix of capitalism and socialism is necessary - the hard part is achieving any kind of consensus of how much of each is ideal.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:04 pm

Greenmile wrote:Seems a bit binary to me. Largely socialist countries like in Scandinavia seem to do alright and things like the welfare state and consumer regulations are vital to a successful society, imo, as unfettered capitalism can be hugely harmful.

For clarity, I am inclined to agree that ideologically pure socialism would probably never work (though I'm less inclined to accept that this is what a Corbyn-led government would bring us), but the same is true of ideologically pure capitalism. I think a mix of capitalism and socialism is necessary - the hard part is achieving any kind of consensus of how much of each is ideal.

Hi again, Greenmile, I'll respond to this post, but we read it as responding also to your "left v right" comment above.

The reason why I say the period of Wilson and Callaghan governments demonstrated that "left wing" policies don't work, is because that is what the policies were, a lot of nationalisation, a "national enterprise board" (read "regional development banks" in Corbyn's promises) and, of course, frighteningly high taxation - 98% at the top rate. What do I mean by it not working: people were not "better off," our "needs and desires" weren't being met, other countries that didn't operate "socialist systems" were growing faster and living standards were higher.

Are the Scandinavian countries "socialist" or do they follow the "blend" you suggest? I'd argue that it's more the blend. I guess you know that the Conservative party has it's Tory Reform Group and before that "PEST" "pressure for economic and social toryism," and somewhere in there the "One Nation Tories." The welfare state is not a "left wing" idea.

How much of each is ideal - I argue that we want the balance that creates the greatest wealth than enables it to be distributed fairly - and doesn't "envy" the ones who have a little more than others. These are the ideas that Blair and his friends expressed - I'm not arguing for Blair/Brown, because it's still important to look at what they actually did, rather than just take in their spin.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:07 pm

Greenmile wrote:Seems a bit binary to me. Largely socialist countries like in Scandinavia seem to do alright (although ClaretMoffit will be along soon to tell me how Sweden is full of Muslims raping everyone, no doubt, because he saw it on Breitbart or YouTube) and things like the welfare state and consumer regulations are vital to a successful society, imo, as unfettered capitalism can be hugely harmful.

For clarity, I am inclined to agree that ideologically pure socialism would probably never work (though I'm less inclined to accept that this is what a Corbyn-led government would bring us), but the same is true of ideologically pure capitalism. I think a mix of capitalism and socialism is necessary - the hard part is achieving any kind of consensus of how much of each is ideal.

Greenmile, you don't normally warrant a response but on this occasion you've posted a very sensible opinion.

I'd counter that you can have "socialism" when you have Capitalism but you cannot have Capitalism when you have Socialism.

In essence, if you create a Socialist economic system you will kill off enterprise and destroy wealth and all of the "socialist" goals you may (free education, healthcare etc) will become unaffordable. I submit in evidence - the USSR, pre-Capitalist China, North Korea, East Germany, Cuba and Venezuela.

On the other hand, if you have a fully functioning Capitalist system, you can start paying for all manner of health care, welfare, pensions, parks, services, amenities etc. In evidence I submit - the USA, the UK, West Germany, South Korea, Japan, post-Soviet China, Singapore, India, Brazil, Western Europe, Canada, Australia....

Scandanavian countries are not pure socialist countries; they are capitalist economies with social policies. They are social democracies, underpinned by Capitalism and huge relative wealth.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:19 pm

AndrewJB wrote:Where does the money come from? Labour are talking about issuing bonds, but there are probably many creative ways of doing it. And each case could be dealt with in its own special way. Macquarie bought Thames Water some years back, and then loaded the organisation down with debt - effectively paying off what they borrowed to buy Thames Water by mortgaging Thames Waters' assets. Macquarie paid out big dividends on the back of this 'windfall'. On top of this Thames Waters hiked their charge in order to buy property to build a new sewer. Would it be fair to say this is owned by Thames Water (and therefore we have to buy it back as part of the nationalisation), or could we consider it as already owned by the taxpayer? Likewise with the debt, which they used to write off against taxable income, do we pay for that too as part of the nationalisation; or do we push through an act of parliament which says 'this is ours now, and this is what you get for it? In my opinion, we should be fair in how we buy all this back, but in the case of companies that have taken the P, there's no reason for us to not to tell them how it's going to be.

And we can do this because we've 'taken back control' - which a majority of people in the UK recently voted for.

Hi Andrew, you do know what a bond is, I hope? (Corbyn and McDonnell didn't know this before the election). A bond is a "debt instrument," an "I O U." So, if C/McD want to buy the water companies with bonds they are saying "look, here are some government bonds, they are a promise to pay you £X in interest payments and £Y at the end of the period..." One of the advantages of bonds is that they can be "bought and sold" on a stock exchange, so the original recipient of the bond can sell the bond to someone who values the bond higher than the current bond holder. Bonds carry the risk that the issuer of the bond is unable to meet their obligations - i.e they have "credit risk."

How much do you think C/McD bonds will be worth?

What you describe for Thames Water is the same way the Glazers bought ManU. Who owns the assets owned by Thames Water - suggest you take a look at the company's legal documents. Interest on debt has always been offset in calculating the taxable profits which are subject to corporation tax. Generally, it would be hard to argue that a company should pay twice, once to the debt providers and again as corporation tax to the government - if they've only got one pot of money, there's got to be an orderly way of determining who gets which share.

Yes, we can do the "this is ours" argument - it's called expropriation. It has been used a number of times by "socialist" governments. It has also always "ended in tears" - just as Venezuela is suffering today. It will not get us a better NHS, it will not eliminate student debt (it might eliminate students, when the unis are closed down as they also run out of money).

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:28 pm

Caballo wrote:Very true, although compared to the Blair then subsequently Brown administrations the were playing at it, I particularly liked the bit where they lent treasury money to the PFI companies to charge us interest on what they built using our money, brilliant!

Nothing compared to what they did with Rover Cars. They paid them multi millions to save Rover, having already invested millions of Taxpayers money. They continued subsidising the Chinese owned company for a year and then helped them export the whole kit, all to build relations with the Chinese, and throw thousands of Brits out of work in the process.

....and still people dream of a return to thee "New Labour days. Give my JC over those two crooks any day. At least we now know if JC makes a complete arse of things if he ever gets in that he did that very British thing "doing his best and with a straight bat".

I trust JC more than possibly any other politician for truly believing in his own mind he is doing things for the right reasons. But I think it would result in an even bigger ultimate disaster for Britain than this current Tory shower are managing for ALL their failings.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:46 pm

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:04 pm

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:08 pm

As just stated on Question Time.

"The problem with socialism, is that eventually, they always run out of other people's money"....

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:56 am

Paul Waine wrote:Hi again, Greenmile, I'll respond to this post, but we read it as responding also to your "left v right" comment above.

The reason why I say the period of Wilson and Callaghan governments demonstrated that "left wing" policies don't work, is because that is what the policies were, a lot of nationalisation, a "national enterprise board" (read "regional development banks" in Corbyn's promises) and, of course, frighteningly high taxation - 98% at the top rate. What do I mean by it not working: people were not "better off," our "needs and desires" weren't being met, other countries that didn't operate "socialist systems" were growing faster and living standards were higher.

Are the Scandinavian countries "socialist" or do they follow the "blend" you suggest? I'd argue that it's more the blend. I guess you know that the Conservative party has it's Tory Reform Group and before that "PEST" "pressure for economic and social toryism," and somewhere in there the "One Nation Tories." The welfare state is not a "left wing" idea.

How much of each is ideal - I argue that we want the balance that creates the greatest wealth than enables it to be distributed fairly - and doesn't "envy" the ones who have a little more than others. These are the ideas that Blair and his friends expressed - I'm not arguing for Blair/Brown, because it's still important to look at what they actually did, rather than just take in their spin.

Hi Paul

Just a quick post before I head to work as both you and Rowls below you seem to have misunderstood my point (or I am misunderstanding yours). I'm replying to you as Rowls just couldn't resist having a little patronising dig in his first sentence.

Scandinavian countries do indeed follow a blend of socialism and capitalism. I'd argue all countries do, but their blend is more heavily socialist. The welfare state may not be left wing, but it is socialist, not capitalist.

And Rowls' contention that capitalism can include socialism but socialism can't include capitalism seems almost mathematically impossible to me. As I say, all countries have a blend of both. His major misunderstanding seems to be thinking that all socialism is communism.