Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The first months of a Corbyn government

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited December 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The first months of a Corbyn government

It’s objectively clear that there is a genuine possibility of a Corbyn government within months, possibly even weeks. That might be after an election, or it might be simply that the Conservatives lose the will to govern: there is a limit to how long governments can function with every vote at risk of failure, and yielding to a minority Labour government which is also subject to hostile majorities at every turn may seem a lesser evil.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,346
    Thanks for the header, Nick! I do love that picture of Corbs.
  • shiney2shiney2 Posts: 634
    edited December 2018
    If and when Corbyn/McDonnell gain executive power I expect them to make as many changes as they can without troubling the HoC. Having tilted the table, and without causing too much fuss, there will be a GE supervised by Momentum Auxiliary police units.
  • > The obvious question is Brexit. Depending on the circumstances in which Labour took over, there might be some tweaking of the Withdrawal Agreement – notably getting rid of the red-line objection to permanent customs union and quite possibly signing up to something close to free trade.

    That would get approximately zero votes from Con, so you'd need everyone else to be solidly behind it which seems like a very big ask.

    So really what he needs to do is: Move into Downing Street, get photographed being nice to the cat, show up in parliament wearing a clean shirt taking care not to nationalize anything on the way, then ask the Tories to join him in voting for a new general election.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,855
    RobD said:

    Thanks for the header, Nick! I do love that picture of Corbs.

    What's the story behind it? Was he auditioning for James Bond?
  • Related thought: Since the obvious outcome of a Corbyn-led government is a near-immediate general election, I don't really why the DUP would be interested in bringing such a thing about. I mean, it's all very well cutting a deal with McDonnell for another billion pounds in mural subsidies, but what's the point if the government's not going to be around long enough to pass a budget?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 10,286
    At first I thought I was reading a header by David Herdson until I got to 30-35% 'who really like him' at which point I looked. A good balanced header though I think you over-estimate Corbyn's popularity.

    Assuming as you have done no imminent General Election or one where Labour depends on other parties the time might have arrived when a new centrist grouping emerges.

    It's a pity that at this time of national emergency Labour have the leadership they have. Not just Corbyn but Abbott McDonnell McClusky and some of the least impressive shadow cabinet members ever assembled.

    With a Blair or a Brown or a Milliband or a Cooper or even a Thornberry Labour could be on course for a '97 type victory and it could have killed off this bonkers Tory Party and their anachronistic ideas of empire for at least a decade.

  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,855
    Agree with the broad thrust of this. On the specifics, I think that shareholding scheme has no chance of passing a Parliament with a minority Labour govt. The obvious choice for a flagship "we are different" policy would be to renationalise railways, as franchises expire.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 22,057
    I have to say, it sticks in my craw when May says "back me - or get Corbyn".

    Remind me - who was it who needlessly lost that Tory majority, Theresa?

    The Conservative Party will long rue not getting rid of her immediately after that election fiasco. It was a pretty solid indicator of how she would cock up Brexit too. Never give a project upon which your business depends to somebody serving their notice.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 10,286
    edited December 2018

    I have to say, it sticks in my craw when May says "back me - or get Corbyn".

    Remind me - who was it who needlessly lost that Tory majority, Theresa?

    The Conservative Party will long rue not getting rid of her immediately after that election fiasco. It was a pretty solid indicator of how she would cock up Brexit too. Never give a project upon which your business depends to somebody serving their notice.

    Even her pre election numbers wouldn't have been enough to see off the ERGers
  • Thanks for the header, Nick, which seems fair enough from a Labour loyalist perspective. However, I’m expecting the Conservatives to crawl all the way to 2022.

    What happens after that is currently unknowable.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,368
    rkrkrk said:

    Agree with the broad thrust of this. On the specifics, I think that shareholding scheme has no chance of passing a Parliament with a minority Labour govt. The obvious choice for a flagship "we are different" policy would be to renationalise railways, as franchises expire.

    Except some of them don't expire until 2025. Will Corbyn's dogmatic supporters be willing to wait that long until they see results?

    And what happens when the first franchises to come back into public ownership - which are Thameslink and Great Western, in practice - perform worse than those franchises in private hands (which they will)?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 6,293
    rkrkrk said:

    RobD said:

    Thanks for the header, Nick! I do love that picture of Corbs.

    What's the story behind it? Was he auditioning for James Bond?
    On The Last Leg, the same show that had Nick Clegg play real life Fruit Ninja. It has evolved into one of the best chat shows.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 22,517
    ydoethur said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Agree with the broad thrust of this. On the specifics, I think that shareholding scheme has no chance of passing a Parliament with a minority Labour govt. The obvious choice for a flagship "we are different" policy would be to renationalise railways, as franchises expire.

    Except some of them don't expire until 2025. Will Corbyn's dogmatic supporters be willing to wait that long until they see results?

    And what happens when the first franchises to come back into public ownership - which are Thameslink and Great Western, in practice - perform worse than those franchises in private hands (which they will)?
    Then there are a host of other issues: what to do about the Open Access operators, the ROSCO's, the freight operators (large such as GBRf, or small such as Colas) etc ? Few people who cry out for rentationalisation appear to have thought through how it will be done, and the potential consequences.

    It's an are where a 'cheap' halfway house might be much more harmful than an expensive proper job.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 6,293

    > The obvious question is Brexit. Depending on the circumstances in which Labour took over, there might be some tweaking of the Withdrawal Agreement – notably getting rid of the red-line objection to permanent customs union and quite possibly signing up to something close to free trade.

    That would get approximately zero votes from Con, so you'd need everyone else to be solidly behind it which seems like a very big ask.

    So really what he needs to do is: Move into Downing Street, get photographed being nice to the cat, show up in parliament wearing a clean shirt taking care not to nationalize anything on the way, then ask the Tories to join him in voting for a new general election.

    A50 Withdrawal/extension would be the first agenda item, justified by need to renegotiate.

    After a few populist giveaways in a budget (payrise for me!) then a honeymoon GE to get a majority.

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 13,145

    I have to say, it sticks in my craw when May says "back me - or get Corbyn".

    Remind me - who was it who needlessly lost that Tory majority, Theresa?

    The Conservative Party will long rue not getting rid of her immediately after that election fiasco. It was a pretty solid indicator of how she would cock up Brexit too. Never give a project upon which your business depends to somebody serving their notice.

    Then the membership might have had the sense to coalesce behind someone even halfway credible and realistic, then, rather than toying with idiots like JRM and Boris thus ensuring that the MPs clung to nurse. The members' flakiness is to blame.

    On topic, nothing about the financial markets?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,274
    Foxy said:

    > The obvious question is Brexit. Depending on the circumstances in which Labour took over, there might be some tweaking of the Withdrawal Agreement – notably getting rid of the red-line objection to permanent customs union and quite possibly signing up to something close to free trade.

    That would get approximately zero votes from Con, so you'd need everyone else to be solidly behind it which seems like a very big ask.

    So really what he needs to do is: Move into Downing Street, get photographed being nice to the cat, show up in parliament wearing a clean shirt taking care not to nationalize anything on the way, then ask the Tories to join him in voting for a new general election.

    A50 Withdrawal/extension would be the first agenda item, justified by need to renegotiate.

    After a few populist giveaways in a budget (payrise for me!) then a honeymoon GE to get a majority.

    Agree. If he could bring some order to the Brexit 'discussions', even by kicking the can down the road the country would be relieved enough. However, the Tories would descend even further into chaos, each faction blaming the others for losing power and that would be the time for a GE.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 20,316
    rkrkrk said:

    RobD said:

    Thanks for the header, Nick! I do love that picture of Corbs.

    What's the story behind it? Was he auditioning for James Bond?
    He was a guest on a comedy chat show called The Last Leg a couple of years ago. This was his intro, well done to whoever persuaded him to actually do it!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,368

    Foxy said:

    > The obvious question is Brexit. Depending on the circumstances in which Labour took over, there might be some tweaking of the Withdrawal Agreement – notably getting rid of the red-line objection to permanent customs union and quite possibly signing up to something close to free trade.

    That would get approximately zero votes from Con, so you'd need everyone else to be solidly behind it which seems like a very big ask.

    So really what he needs to do is: Move into Downing Street, get photographed being nice to the cat, show up in parliament wearing a clean shirt taking care not to nationalize anything on the way, then ask the Tories to join him in voting for a new general election.

    A50 Withdrawal/extension would be the first agenda item, justified by need to renegotiate.

    After a few populist giveaways in a budget (payrise for me!) then a honeymoon GE to get a majority.

    Agree. If he could bring some order to the Brexit 'discussions', even by kicking the can down the road the country would be relieved enough. However, the Tories would descend even further into chaos, each faction blaming the others for losing power and that would be the time for a GE.
    Disagree entirely. Kicking cans down the road isn't 'bringing order' it's delaying making some tough decisions. Corbyn, as a populist who says what people want to hear, would be good at it, of course. But that doesn't mean it would be helpful. In fact, it would economically and socially be the most damaging outcome of all.

    It has to be said though that a big problem in this country for at least 20 years is politicians simply have been unable or unwilling to take tough decisions or be honest with voters. That goes for social care, health care, pensions, power generation, housing capacity, transport, military prowess and trade deals, massive problems in all of which have been repeatedly ignored. And in light of May's experience that's not going to be changing any time soon.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 13,145
    edited December 2018
    rkrkrk said:

    RobD said:

    Thanks for the header, Nick! I do love that picture of Corbs.

    What's the story behind it? Was he auditioning for James Bond?
    Another expat? ;)

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 22,517
    Incidentally, one of the best pieces featuring Labour's thinking on railway renationalisation can be seen at
    https://www.railmagazine.com/news/rail-features/exclusive

    (There was a second piece the next issue, which sadly does not seem to be online).

    It takes a very different - and welcome- view from the usual hysteria over foreign profits, and is much more grounded in reality wrt fragmentation. It's also hard to argue against many of the points made.

    However - it also seems to take a view that renationalisaiton means all these problem will go away. As an example, the idea that different train operators are the reason services do not pause to allow connections is rather optimistic; it happened regularly under BR, and the network effects of delaying a train - especially on a busy line - can ripple into delays on different trains. Making that call can be a very difficult one: it is not up to the local stationmaster just trotting off to the signalbox at the end of the platform.

    It should also be noted that the unfragmented network he outlines never existed under BR (it it is simply too large an organisation), so many 'wasteful' interfaces will exist. In addition, it is also a million miles away from the nationalise-one-TOC-at-a-time world.

    I reckon this is nearer Labour's thinking - and that might be a good thing, because at least it means they're thinking.

    Now, as to how to do it I could write a thread or two on that. ;)
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,274
    Cricket news; Aussies up against it vs India. Need 231 more with only 6 wickets left. If they get it, would be the highest innings in the match.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,368

    Cricket news; Aussies up against it vs India. Need 231 more with only 6 wickets left. If they get it, would be the highest innings in the match.

    You'd have to have a heart of stone not to laugh.

    And it's quite funny that the difference between the teams was Cheteshwar Pujara, the man who always seems to get dropped first.
  • Labour MPs become exceptionally powerful as soon as Corbyn becomes PM. McDonnell clearly understands this and he’ll be the one in charge.

    In other news, I am guessing everyone has seen this ... but, if the Gilets were to become a political party they’d help En Marche!!

    https://www.lejdd.fr/Politique/sondage-les-gilets-jaunes-a-12-aux-europeennes-en-cas-de-candidature-3816677
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,274
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    > The obvious question is Brexit. Depending on the circumstances in which Labour took over, there might be some tweaking of the Withdrawal Agreement – notably getting rid of the red-line objection to permanent customs union and quite possibly signing up to something close to free trade.

    That would get approximately zero votes from Con, so you'd need everyone else to be solidly behind it which seems like a very big ask.

    So really what he needs to do is: Move into Downing Street, get photographed being nice to the cat, show up in parliament wearing a clean shirt taking care not to nationalize anything on the way, then ask the Tories to join him in voting for a new general election.

    A50 Withdrawal/extension would be the first agenda item, justified by need to renegotiate.

    After a few populist giveaways in a budget (payrise for me!) then a honeymoon GE to get a majority.

    Agree. If he could bring some order to the Brexit 'discussions', even by kicking the can down the road the country would be relieved enough. However, the Tories would descend even further into chaos, each faction blaming the others for losing power and that would be the time for a GE.
    Disagree entirely. Kicking cans down the road isn't 'bringing order' it's delaying making some tough decisions. Corbyn, as a populist who says what people want to hear, would be good at it, of course. But that doesn't mean it would be helpful. In fact, it would economically and socially be the most damaging outcome of all.

    It has to be said though that a big problem in this country for at least 20 years is politicians simply have been unable or unwilling to take tough decisions or be honest with voters. That goes for social care, health care, pensions, power generation, housing capacity, transport, military prowess and trade deals, massive problems in all of which have been repeatedly ignored. And in light of May's experience that's not going to be changing any time soon.
    Kicking can down the road in the this context means withdraing A50 letter, always assuming the CJEU agrees with it's Advocate, We'd still be on notice to leave, but otherwise nothing would change.
    Otherwise I agree with you about being unwilling to take tough decisions. I'm not sure, TBH, that Corbyn would, in the first few weeks be willing to do so, if only because the first priority will be to win a GE with a working majority.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,274
    ydoethur said:

    Cricket news; Aussies up against it vs India. Need 231 more with only 6 wickets left. If they get it, would be the highest innings in the match.

    You'd have to have a heart of stone not to laugh.

    And it's quite funny that the difference between the teams was Cheteshwar Pujara, the man who always seems to get dropped first.
    Yes; Pujara highest scorer in both Indian innings
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,368

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    > The obvious question is Brexit. Depending on the circumstances in which Labour took over, there might be some tweaking of the Withdrawal Agreement – notably getting rid of the red-line objection to permanent customs union and quite possibly signing up to something close to free trade.

    That would get approximately zero votes from Con, so you'd need everyone else to be solidly behind it which seems like a very big ask.

    So really what he needs to do is: Move into Downing Street, get photographed being nice to the cat, show up in parliament wearing a clean shirt taking care not to nationalize anything on the way, then ask the Tories to join him in voting for a new general election.

    A50 Withdrawal/extension would be the first agenda item, justified by need to renegotiate.

    After a few populist giveaways in a budget (payrise for me!) then a honeymoon GE to get a majority.

    Agree. If he could bring some order to the Brexit 'discussions', even by kicking the can down the road the country would be relieved enough. However, the Tories would descend even further into chaos, each faction blaming the others for losing power and that would be the time for a GE.
    Disagree entirely. Kicking cans down the road isn't 'bringing order' it's delaying making some tough decisions. Corbyn, as a populist who says what people want to hear, would be good at it, of course. But that doesn't mean it would be helpful. In fact, it would economically and socially be the most damaging outcome of all.

    It has to be said though that a big problem in this country for at least 20 years is politicians simply have been unable or unwilling to take tough decisions or be honest with voters. That goes for social care, health care, pensions, power generation, housing capacity, transport, military prowess and trade deals, massive problems in all of which have been repeatedly ignored. And in light of May's experience that's not going to be changing any time soon.
    Kicking can down the road in the this context means withdraing A50 letter, always assuming the CJEU agrees with it's Advocate, We'd still be on notice to leave, but otherwise nothing would change.
    Otherwise I agree with you about being unwilling to take tough decisions. I'm not sure, TBH, that Corbyn would, in the first few weeks be willing to do so, if only because the first priority will be to win a GE with a working majority.
    Again, I disagree. He would be unwilling to EVER make tough decisions that would make him unpopular, never mind in the first few weeks.

    Of course, he's likely to end up doing it by accident - look at Brown and May.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 20,316
    Good article Nick, although I still don't see how Corbyn can become PM this side of an election.

    Given the current Parliamentary arithmetic, the DUP only need to abstain for the Conservatives to have a majority - so unless the DUP decide to prop up Corbyn or there are a number of Conservative defections (Hi Sarah Woolaston and Heidi Allen!) then Mr Meeks is correct that some form of Con government will likely run until 2022.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 28,004
    edited December 2018
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    > The obvious question is Brexit. Depending on the circumstances in which Labour took over, there might be some tweaking of the Withdrawal Agreement – notably getting rid of the red-line objection to permanent customs union and quite possibly signing up to something close to free trade.

    That would get approximately zero votes from Con, so you'd need everyone else to be solidly behind it which seems like a very big ask.

    So really what he needs to do is: Move into Downing Street, get photographed being nice to the cat, show up in parliament wearing a clean shirt taking care not to nationalize anything on the way, then ask the Tories to join him in voting for a new general election.

    A50 Withdrawal/extension would be the first agenda item, justified by need to renegotiate.

    After a few populist giveaways in a budget (payrise for me!) then a honeymoon GE to get a majority.

    Agree. If he could bring some order to the Brexit 'discussions', even by kicking the can down the road the country would be relieved enough. However, the Tories would descend even further into chaos, each faction blaming the others for losing power and that would be the time for a GE.
    Disagree entirely. Kicking cans down the road isn't 'bringing order' it's delaying making some tough decisions. Corbyn, as a populist who says what people want to hear, would be good at it, of course. But that doesn't mean it would be helpful. In fact, it would economically and socially be the most damaging outcome of all.

    It has to be said though that a big problem in this country for at least 20 years is politicians simply have been unable or unwilling to take tough decisions or be honest with voters. That goes for social care, health care, pensions, power generation, housing capacity, transport, military prowess and trade deals, massive problems in all of which have been repeatedly ignored. And in light of May's experience that's not going to be changing any time soon.

    May spent two years denying the obvious truths about the choices Brexit entails. If you don’t level with voters you get to where wevare today. That said, Macron has pretty much done what he said he would do and look where that’s got him!!

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,368

    ydoethur said:

    Cricket news; Aussies up against it vs India. Need 231 more with only 6 wickets left. If they get it, would be the highest innings in the match.

    You'd have to have a heart of stone not to laugh.

    And it's quite funny that the difference between the teams was Cheteshwar Pujara, the man who always seems to get dropped first.
    Yes; Pujara highest scorer in both Indian innings
    India one wicket away from the tail.

    You have to wonder how long Paine can survive as captain. He was picked in a fairly desperate emergency as a temporary measure. His batting has been indifferent, his glove work poor, his management questionable and his tactics ineffectual.

    The reason he is there is because neither vice-captain is assured of a place in the side, Smith is banned, Finch isn't seen as a long-term solution and Handscomb and Head are both very inexperienced.

    But you do have to wonder how long it will be before the selectors seriously consider giving Khawaja the armband.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,368

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    > The obvious question is Brexit. Depending on the circumstances in which Labour took over, there might be some tweaking of the Withdrawal Agreement – notably getting rid of the red-line objection to permanent customs union and quite possibly signing up to something close to free trade.

    That would get approximately zero votes from Con, so you'd need everyone else to be solidly behind it which seems like a very big ask.

    So really what he needs to do is: Move into Downing Street, get photographed being nice to the cat, show up in parliament wearing a clean shirt taking care not to nationalize anything on the way, then ask the Tories to join him in voting for a new general election.

    A50 Withdrawal/extension would be the first agenda item, justified by need to renegotiate.

    After a few populist giveaways in a budget (payrise for me!) then a honeymoon GE to get a majority.

    Agree. If he could bring some order to the Brexit 'discussions', even by kicking the can down the road the country would be relieved enough. However, the Tories would descend even further into chaos, each faction blaming the others for losing power and that would be the time for a GE.
    Disagree entirely. Kicking cans down the road isn't 'bringing order' it's delaying making some tough decisions. Corbyn, as a populist who says what people want to hear, would be good at it, of course. But that doesn't mean it would be helpful. In fact, it would economically and socially be the most damaging outcome of all.

    It has to be said though that a big problem in this country for at least 20 years is politicians simply have been unable or unwilling to take tough decisions or be honest with voters. That goes for social care, health care, pensions, power generation, housing capacity, transport, military prowess and trade deals, massive problems in all of which have been repeatedly ignored. And in light of May's experience that's not going to be changing any time soon.

    May spent two years denying the obvious truths about the choices Brexit entails. If you don’t level with voters you get to where wevare today. That said, Macron has pretty much done what he said he would do and look where that’s got him!!

    I was thinking of the so-called 'dementia tax.' But you're right, it seems to have put her off being honest or decisive.
  • PeterCPeterC Posts: 1,107
    edited December 2018

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    > The obvious question is Brexit. Depending on the circumstances in which Labour took over, there might be some tweaking of the Withdrawal Agreement – notably getting rid of the red-line objection to permanent customs union and quite possibly signing up to something close to free trade.

    That would get approximately zero votes from Con, so you'd need everyone else to be solidly behind it which seems like a very big ask.

    So really what he needs to do is: Move into Downing Street, get photographed being nice to the cat, show up in parliament wearing a clean shirt taking care not to nationalize anything on the way, then ask the Tories to join him in voting for a new general election.

    A50 Withdrawal/extension would be the first agenda item, justified by need to renegotiate.

    After a few populist giveaways in a budget (payrise for me!) then a honeymoon GE to get a majority.

    Agree. If he could bring some order to the Brexit 'discussions', even by kicking the can down the road the country would be relieved enough. However, the Tories would descend even further into chaos, each faction blaming the others for losing power and that would be the time for a GE.
    Disagree entirely. Kicking cans down the road isn't 'bringing order' it's delaying making some tough decisions. Corbyn, as a populist who says what people want to hear, would be good at it, of course. But that doesn't mean it would be helpful. In fact, it would economically and socially be the most damaging outcome of all.

    It has to be said though that a big problem in this country for at least 20 years is politicians simply have been unable or unwilling to take tough decisions or be honest with voters. That goes for social care, health care, pensions, power generation, housing capacity, transport, military prowess and trade deals, massive problems in all of which have been repeatedly ignored. And in light of May's experience that's not going to be changing any time soon.
    Kicking can down the road in the this context means withdraing A50 letter, always assuming the CJEU agrees with it's Advocate, We'd still be on notice to leave, but otherwise nothing would change.
    Otherwise I agree with you about being unwilling to take tough decisions. I'm not sure, TBH, that Corbyn would, in the first few weeks be willing to do so, if only because the first priority will be to win a GE with a working majority.
    If Cobyn became PM he would be a prisoner of the FTPA = he couldf not simply call an election. He could only be no confidenced if the opposition chose to do that, and he would not be able to summon the two thirds majority for a GE.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,274
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    > The obvious question is Brexit. Depending on the circumstances in which Labour took over, there might be some tweaking of the Withdrawal Agreement – notably getting rid of the red-line objection to permanent customs union and quite possibly signing up to something close to free trade.

    That would get approximately zero votes from Con, so you'd need everyone else to be solidly behind it which seems like a very big ask.

    So really what he needs to do is: Move into Downing Street, get photographed being nice to the cat, show up in parliament wearing a clean shirt taking care not to nationalize anything on the way, then ask the Tories to join him in voting for a new general election.

    A50 Withdrawal/extension would be the first agenda item, justified by need to renegotiate.

    After a few populist giveaways in a budget (payrise for me!) then a honeymoon GE to get a majority.

    Agree. If he could bring some order to the Brexit 'discussions', even by kicking the can down the road the country would be relieved enough. However, the Tories would descend even further into chaos, each faction blaming the others for losing power and that would be the time for a GE.

    It has to be said though that a big problem in this country for at least 20 years is politicians simply have been unable or unwilling to take tough decisions or be honest with voters. That goes for social care, health care, pensions, power generation, housing capacity, transport, military prowess and trade deals, massive problems in all of which have been repeatedly ignored. And in light of May's experience that's not going to be changing any time soon.
    Otherwise I agree with you about being unwilling to take tough decisions. I'm not sure, TBH, that Corbyn would, in the first few weeks be willing to do so, if only because the first priority will be to win a GE with a working majority.
    Again, I disagree. He would be unwilling to EVER make tough decisions that would make him unpopular, never mind in the first few weeks.

    Of course, he's likely to end up doing it by accident - look at Brown and May.
    Many years ago I went on a management course in which we were told that for a successful team one needed a Leader, a Joker, an Accountant and a Critic. The Joker was to act as the madcap, bringing 'left field' ideas to the table, and the Critic, of course, to pour cold water on them!
    I've never been quite sure which of those two roles Corbyn was suited to, but it's never seemed to me that he was any sort of Leader.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,274
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cricket news; Aussies up against it vs India. Need 231 more with only 6 wickets left. If they get it, would be the highest innings in the match.

    You'd have to have a heart of stone not to laugh.

    And it's quite funny that the difference between the teams was Cheteshwar Pujara, the man who always seems to get dropped first.
    Yes; Pujara highest scorer in both Indian innings
    India one wicket away from the tail.

    You have to wonder how long Paine can survive as captain. He was picked in a fairly desperate emergency as a temporary measure. His batting has been indifferent, his glove work poor, his management questionable and his tactics ineffectual.

    The reason he is there is because neither vice-captain is assured of a place in the side, Smith is banned, Finch isn't seen as a long-term solution and Handscomb and Head are both very inexperienced.

    But you do have to wonder how long it will be before the selectors seriously consider giving Khawaja the armband.
    Inclined to agree about Paine. However, the Aussies have got through to day 5.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 3,342
    Just on Brexit (for a change). Can somebody explain why did Benn amendment (if accepted and passed) doesn’t effectively rule out a referendum as it means that there is no alternative to remain that can be included on the ballot paper?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 10,341
    edited December 2018
    Interesting article.

    The country needs a change of government. There are clearly competent people on the opposition bench ready to go. Like many Labour voters, I have very serious concerns about Macdonell, Corbyn and their advisors. I rely on the backbenchers like Cooper and ministers like Starmer keeping them from descending into a backward ideological crusade.

    A Labour govt with a small working majority could be interesting.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 49,035
    alex. said:

    Just on Brexit (for a change). Can somebody explain why did Benn amendment (if accepted and passed) doesn’t effectively rule out a referendum as it means that there is no alternative to remain that can be included on the ballot paper?

    Doesn't it simply kill the bill there and then ?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 13,145
    edited December 2018
    Pulpstar said:

    alex. said:

    Just on Brexit (for a change). Can somebody explain why did Benn amendment (if accepted and passed) doesn’t effectively rule out a referendum as it means that there is no alternative to remain that can be included on the ballot paper?

    Doesn't it simply kill the bill there and then ?
    Doesn't it simply allow amendments to be tabled, closing off the "take it or leave it" strategem for the government? Edit/oops, that's the grieve amendment. The Benn amendment is a wrecking one and who knows what happens if it passes.
  • Jonathan said:

    Interesting article.

    The country needs a change of government. There are clearly competent people on the opposition bench ready to go. Like many Labour voters, I have very serious concerns about Macdonell, Corbyn and their advisors. I rely on the backbenchers like Cooper and ministers like Starmer keeping them from descending into a backward ideological crusade.

    A Labour govt with a small working majority could be interesting.

    The Labour leadership needs mass deselections before the next election. Without them any Corbyn government would be a prisoner of the PLP. But mass deselections make a Labour victory even less likely. It is an exquisite dilemma.

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 13,145

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    > The obvious question is Brexit. Depending on the circumstances in which Labour took over, there might be some tweaking of the Withdrawal Agreement – notably getting rid of the red-line objection to permanent customs union and quite possibly signing up to something close to free trade.

    That would get approximately zero votes from Con, so you'd need everyone else to be solidly behind it which seems like a very big ask.

    So really what he needs to do is: Move into Downing Street, get photographed being nice to the cat, show up in parliament wearing a clean shirt taking care not to nationalize anything on the way, then ask the Tories to join him in voting for a new general election.

    A50 Withdrawal/extension would be the first agenda item, justified by need to renegotiate.

    After a few populist giveaways in a budget (payrise for me!) then a honeymoon GE to get a majority.

    Agree. If he could bring some order to the Bre a GE.

    It has to be said though that a big problem in this country for at least 20 years is politicians simply have been unable or unwilling to take tough decisions or be honest with voters. That goes for social care, health care, pensions, power generation, housing capacity, transport, military prowess and trade deals, massive problems in all of which have been repeatedly ignored. And in light of May's experience that's not going to be changing any time soon.
    Otherwise I agree with you about being unwilling to take tough decisions. I'm not sure, TBH, that Corbyn would, in the first few weeks be willing to do so, if only because the first priority will be to win a GE with a working majority.
    Again, I disagree. He would be unwilling to EVER make tough decisions that would make him unpopular, never mind in the first few weeks.

    Of course, he's likely to end up doing it by accident - look at Brown and May.
    Many years ago I went on a management course in which we were told that for a successful team one needed a Leader, a Joker, an Accountant and a Critic. The Joker was to act as the madcap, bringing 'left field' ideas to the table, and the Critic, of course, to pour cold water on them!
    I've never been quite sure which of those two roles Corbyn was suited to, but it's never seemed to me that he was any sort of Leader.
    That sounds like cod Belbin. The original model is more convincing and doesn't say you need one of each, except for the Plant (your joker) where one is sufficient.
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 1,047
    edited December 2018
    A Corbyn Gov will mean economic amageddon. Businesses who can leave the U.K., will. McDonnell will impose his manifesto land tax proposals effectively charging people extortionate rents for living in their own homes; we’ll see a plethora of strikes and the lack of investment we are seeing now will get worse. There will be an huge outflow of capital before he takes office. There will be a ton of money chucked at public services and it won’t make bit of difference to them. Renationalisation will be expensive and pointless achieving nothing. Inflation will be back with a vengeance forcing interest rates up and there will be a run on the £.

    The Tories will have no one to blame but themselves for sticking with May for so long and making Corbyn so appealing to so many.
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,210
    Pulpstar said:

    alex. said:

    Just on Brexit (for a change). Can somebody explain why did Benn amendment (if accepted and passed) doesn’t effectively rule out a referendum as it means that there is no alternative to remain that can be included on the ballot paper?

    Doesn't it simply kill the bill there and then ?
    It will prevent the meaningful vote taking place. If it passes it'll squeak through, and it will look like Theresa May has only lost by a few votes when that's not the case.

    I'd be sorely tempted to vote against it, to make sure the meaningful vote takes place. Aping the extreme case, it could save May's premiership.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,977
    With a Labour majority at the next GE, you could always apply the Remain strategy. Clearly it's wrong, so prevaricate, claim its too difficult to change all the apparatus of government, and press for another GE within days. Once they start to appoint ministers, you can claim we have more information and we've changed our minds as a result.

    Jezza seems to have lost some of his novelty value. The fact Labour isn't miles ahead is down to him. A hung parliament? Rule by referendum overseen by the CS?



  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,274
    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    > The obvious question is Brexit. Depending on the circumstances in which Labour took over, there might be some tweaking of the Withdrawal Agreement – notably getting rid of the red-line objection to permanent customs union and quite possibly signing up to something close to free trade.

    That would get approximately zero votes from Con, so you'd need everyone else to be solidly behind it which seems like a very big ask.

    So really what he needs to do is: Move into Downing Street, get photographed being nice to the cat, show up in parliament wearing a clean shirt taking care not to nationalize anything on the way, then ask the Tories to join him in voting for a new general election.


    Agree. If he could bring some order to the Bre a GE.

    It has to be said though that a big problem in this country for at least 20 years is politicians simply have been unable or unwilling to take tough decisions or be honest with voters. That goes for social care, health care, pensions, power generation, housing capacity, transport, military prowess and trade deals, massive problems in all of which have been repeatedly ignored. And in light of May's experience that's not going to be changing any time soon.
    Otherwise I agree with you about being unwilling to take tough decisions. I'm not sure, TBH, that Corbyn would, in the first few weeks be willing to do so, if only because the first priority will be to win a GE with a working majority.

    Of course, he's likely to end up doing it by accident - look at Brown and May.
    Many years ago I went on a management course in which we were told that for a successful team one needed a Leader, a Joker, an Accountant and a Critic. The Joker was to act as the madcap, bringing 'left field' ideas to the table, and the Critic, of course, to pour cold water on them!
    I've never been quite sure which of those two roles Corbyn was suited to, but it's never seemed to me that he was any sort of Leader.
    That sounds like cod Belbin. The original model is more convincing and doesn't say you need one of each, except for the Plant (your joker) where one is sufficient.
    Yup. I wasn't very impressed by the lecturer, TBH. Course was Creative and Transformational Management and I really didn't take a lot from it!
    Ended up writing an essay on how a Neolithic man, who had been brought up in the mountains but moved to the coast, would explain the seashore to his former neighbours.
    The lecturer quite liked it.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 49,035
    tpfkar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    alex. said:

    Just on Brexit (for a change). Can somebody explain why did Benn amendment (if accepted and passed) doesn’t effectively rule out a referendum as it means that there is no alternative to remain that can be included on the ballot paper?

    Doesn't it simply kill the bill there and then ?
    It will prevent the meaningful vote taking place. If it passes it'll squeak through, and it will look like Theresa May has only lost by a few votes when that's not the case.

    I'd be sorely tempted to vote against it, to make sure the meaningful vote takes place. Aping the extreme case, it could save May's premiership.
    One for May's most loyal aides to get stuck in the bogs on ?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 20,316
    tpfkar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    alex. said:

    Just on Brexit (for a change). Can somebody explain why did Benn amendment (if accepted and passed) doesn’t effectively rule out a referendum as it means that there is no alternative to remain that can be included on the ballot paper?

    Doesn't it simply kill the bill there and then ?
    It will prevent the meaningful vote taking place. If it passes it'll squeak through, and it will look like Theresa May has only lost by a few votes when that's not the case.

    I'd be sorely tempted to vote against it, to make sure the meaningful vote takes place. Aping the extreme case, it could save May's premiership.
    I don't understand those calling for Tuesday's vote to be suspended. The only chance of getting the EU to negotiate further is if they see the vote take place and the PM suffer a thumping defeat.

    I see a couple more junior members of the payroll resigning overnight to vote against, it's looking like a 200 majority against - assuming Labour don't play Ed-Milliband-on-Syria games and abstain at the last minute to try and force an election.
  • A Corbyn Gov will mean economic Armageddon. Businesses who can will leave the U.K., will. McDonnell will impose his manifesto land tax proposals effectively charging people extortionate rents for living in their own homes; we’ll see a plethora of strikes and the lack of investment we are seeing now will get worse. There will be an huge outflow of capital before he takes office. There will be a ton of money chucked at public services and it won’t make bit of difference to them. Renationalisation will be expensive and pointless achieving nothing.

    The Tories will have no one to blame but themselves for sticking with May for so long and making Corbyn so appealing to so many.

    Project Fear with Brexit crossed out and Corbyn pencilled in? Which raises two questions. First, from the cynical electioneering point of view, if it did not work for Brexit, why will it work now? Second, and only slightly less cynical, how is this worse than the Tory Brexit economic Armageddon we are this week careering towards?
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 1,047
    edited December 2018

    A Corbyn Gov will mean economic Armageddon. Businesses who can will leave the U.K., will. McDonnell will impose his manifesto land tax proposals effectively charging people extortionate rents for living in their own homes; we’ll see a plethora of strikes and the lack of investment we are seeing now will get worse. There will be an huge outflow of capital before he takes office. There will be a ton of money chucked at public services and it won’t make bit of difference to them. Renationalisation will be expensive and pointless achieving nothing.

    The Tories will have no one to blame but themselves for sticking with May for so long and making Corbyn so appealing to so many.

    Project Fear with Brexit crossed out and Corbyn pencilled in? Which raises two questions. First, from the cynical electioneering point of view, if it did not work for Brexit, why will it work now? Second, and only slightly less cynical, how is this worse than the Tory Brexit economic Armageddon we are this week careering towards?
    Not really - just the logical outcome of reading Labour’s 2017 election manifesto. Can’t imagine the next manifesto will be any different because Corbyn and McDonnell care about ideology not people.
  • A Corbyn Gov will mean economic amageddon. Businesses who can leave the U.K., will. McDonnell will impose his manifesto land tax proposals effectively charging people extortionate rents for living in their own homes; we’ll see a plethora of strikes and the lack of investment we are seeing now will get worse. There will be an huge outflow of capital before he takes office. There will be a ton of money chucked at public services and it won’t make bit of difference to them. Renationalisation will be expensive and pointless achieving nothing. Inflation will be back with a vengeance forcing interest rates up and there will be a run on the £.

    The Tories will have no one to blame but themselves for sticking with May for so long and making Corbyn so appealing to so many.

    A land tax is good neo-liberal economics. I don't doubt that the voters would hate it, but it's definitely not the kind of thing that would cause capital flight.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,274

    A Corbyn Gov will mean economic amageddon. Businesses who can leave the U.K., will. McDonnell will impose his manifesto land tax proposals effectively charging people extortionate rents for living in their own homes; we’ll see a plethora of strikes and the lack of investment we are seeing now will get worse. There will be an huge outflow of capital before he takes office. There will be a ton of money chucked at public services and it won’t make bit of difference to them. Renationalisation will be expensive and pointless achieving nothing. Inflation will be back with a vengeance forcing interest rates up and there will be a run on the £.

    The Tories will have no one to blame but themselves for sticking with May for so long and making Corbyn so appealing to so many.

    A land tax is good neo-liberal economics. I don't doubt that the voters would hate it, but it's definitely not the kind of thing that would cause capital flight.
    Well, we don't have to imagine the disastrous conseqeunces of a Right-Wing Tory government; we're living it!
  • A Corbyn Gov will mean economic amageddon. Businesses who can leave the U.K., will. McDonnell will impose his manifesto land tax proposals effectively charging people extortionate rents for living in their own homes; we’ll see a plethora of strikes and the lack of investment we are seeing now will get worse. There will be an huge outflow of capital before he takes office. There will be a ton of money chucked at public services and it won’t make bit of difference to them. Renationalisation will be expensive and pointless achieving nothing. Inflation will be back with a vengeance forcing interest rates up and there will be a run on the £.

    The Tories will have no one to blame but themselves for sticking with May for so long and making Corbyn so appealing to so many.

    A land tax is good neo-liberal economics. I don't doubt that the voters would hate it, but it's definitely not the kind of thing that would cause capital flight.
    The belief that all land ultimately belongs to the state and tax policy is levied accordingly is bad economics. It’s impoverished every country where it’s been tried.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 10,286
    CD13 said:

    With a Labour majority at the next GE, you could always apply the Remain strategy. Clearly it's wrong, so prevaricate, claim its too difficult to change all the apparatus of government, and press for another GE within days. Once they start to appoint ministers, you can claim we have more information and we've changed our minds as a result.

    Jezza seems to have lost some of his novelty value. The fact Labour isn't miles ahead is down to him. A hung parliament? Rule by referendum overseen by the CS?



    With a small Labour majority and with large sections of his party not supporting the leadership that's exactly what you'd get. That's what so crap about the referendum. A deal can't get through parliament and we can't call another vote
  • A Corbyn Gov will mean economic amageddon. Businesses who can leave the U.K., will. McDonnell will impose his manifesto land tax proposals effectively charging people extortionate rents for living in their own homes; we’ll see a plethora of strikes and the lack of investment we are seeing now will get worse. There will be an huge outflow of capital before he takes office. There will be a ton of money chucked at public services and it won’t make bit of difference to them. Renationalisation will be expensive and pointless achieving nothing. Inflation will be back with a vengeance forcing interest rates up and there will be a run on the £.

    The Tories will have no one to blame but themselves for sticking with May for so long and making Corbyn so appealing to so many.

    A land tax is good neo-liberal economics. I don't doubt that the voters would hate it, but it's definitely not the kind of thing that would cause capital flight.
    Well, we don't have to imagine the disastrous conseqeunces of a Right-Wing Tory government; we're living it!
    There is nothing right wing or Tory about this Gov. it’s effectively a single issue Gov and much more like Miliband’s Labour than anything recognisably Conservative. It’s just another tax and spend Gov and the most anti-business Gov I can remember in Britain whilst totally ignoring consumer interests and rights.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 20,316

    A Corbyn Gov will mean economic amageddon. Businesses who can leave the U.K., will. McDonnell will impose his manifesto land tax proposals effectively charging people extortionate rents for living in their own homes; we’ll see a plethora of strikes and the lack of investment we are seeing now will get worse. There will be an huge outflow of capital before he takes office. There will be a ton of money chucked at public services and it won’t make bit of difference to them. Renationalisation will be expensive and pointless achieving nothing. Inflation will be back with a vengeance forcing interest rates up and there will be a run on the £.

    The Tories will have no one to blame but themselves for sticking with May for so long and making Corbyn so appealing to so many.

    A land tax is good neo-liberal economics. I don't doubt that the voters would hate it, but it's definitely not the kind of thing that would cause capital flight.
    So long as you tax land *instead* of income amd consumption. Somehow I don’t think that’s John McDonnell’s plan.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 3,342

    A Corbyn Gov will mean economic amageddon. Businesses who can leave the U.K., will. McDonnell will impose his manifesto land tax proposals effectively charging people extortionate rents for living in their own homes; we’ll see a plethora of strikes and the lack of investment we are seeing now will get worse. There will be an huge outflow of capital before he takes office. There will be a ton of money chucked at public services and it won’t make bit of difference to them. Renationalisation will be expensive and pointless achieving nothing. Inflation will be back with a vengeance forcing interest rates up and there will be a run on the £.

    The Tories will have no one to blame but themselves for sticking with May for so long and making Corbyn so appealing to so many.

    A land tax is good neo-liberal economics. I don't doubt that the voters would hate it, but it's definitely not the kind of thing that would cause capital flight.
    The belief that all land ultimately belongs to the state and tax policy is levied accordingly is bad economics. It’s impoverished every country where it’s been tried.
    Doesn’t your key complaint (people paying rent to live in their own homes) apply to property taxes rather than land taxes?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,274
    alex. said:

    A Corbyn Gov will mean economic amageddon. Businesses who can leave the U.K., will. McDonnell will impose his manifesto land tax proposals effectively charging people extortionate rents for living in their own homes; we’ll see a plethora of strikes and the lack of investment we are seeing now will get worse. There will be an huge outflow of capital before he takes office. There will be a ton of money chucked at public services and it won’t make bit of difference to them. Renationalisation will be expensive and pointless achieving nothing. Inflation will be back with a vengeance forcing interest rates up and there will be a run on the £.

    The Tories will have no one to blame but themselves for sticking with May for so long and making Corbyn so appealing to so many.

    A land tax is good neo-liberal economics. I don't doubt that the voters would hate it, but it's definitely not the kind of thing that would cause capital flight.
    The belief that all land ultimately belongs to the state and tax policy is levied accordingly is bad economics. It’s impoverished every country where it’s been tried.
    Doesn’t your key complaint (people paying rent to live in their own homes) apply to property taxes rather than land taxes?
    It's almost feudal, isn't it. Except land belongs to 'the state' instead of 'the king'.
    AKA 'l'estat, c'est moi!'
  • Good morning, everyone.

    Quite, Mr. Sandpit.

    Socialists view tax the same way a nymphomaniac views a nude beach. They just can't help themselves, and **** everything.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 22,517

    Good morning, everyone.

    Quite, Mr. Sandpit.

    Socialists view tax the same way a nymphomaniac views a nude beach. They just can't help themselves, and **** everything.

    Yes, because this Conservative government are doing a really good job of not ****ing everything up, aren't they? And all because of an ideology called Brexit.

    And even if (and that's a big conditional) Brexit blows over, their reputation for fiscal management will have disappeared as well, as too many senior Conservatives are putting their ideology ahead of the good running of the country.
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 1,047
    edited December 2018
    alex. said:

    A Corbyn Gov will mean economic amageddon. Businesses who can leave the U.K., will. McDonnell will impose his manifesto land tax proposals effectively charging people extortionate rents for living in their own homes; we’ll see a plethora of strikes and the lack of investment we are seeing now will get worse. There will be an huge outflow of capital before he takes office. There will be a ton of money chucked at public services and it won’t make bit of difference to them. Renationalisation will be expensive and pointless achieving nothing. Inflation will be back with a vengeance forcing interest rates up and there will be a run on the £.

    The Tories will have no one to blame but themselves for sticking with May for so long and making Corbyn so appealing to so many.

    A land tax is good neo-liberal economics. I don't doubt that the voters would hate it, but it's definitely not the kind of thing that would cause capital flight.
    The belief that all land ultimately belongs to the state and tax policy is levied accordingly is bad economics. It’s impoverished every country where it’s been tried.
    Doesn’t your key complaint (people paying rent to live in their own homes) apply to property taxes rather than land taxes?
    Not really. It’s a wealth tax and applied regardless of whether the wealth is realised or not. A lot of people will suffer as a result and become forced sellers driven out of their own homes.

  • The belief that all land ultimately belongs to the state and tax policy is levied accordingly is bad economics. It’s impoverished every country where it’s been tried.

    The belief that the state can tax pretty much anything it can measure without needing to own it is pretty standard market economics, and has made all the countries that are currently rich rich.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 10,341

    Good morning, everyone.

    Quite, Mr. Sandpit.

    Socialists view tax the same way a nymphomaniac views a nude beach. They just can't help themselves, and **** everything.

    I was once dragged to a nude beach (UK) by my girlfriend. It wasn't much fun. I remained dressed, hiding behind a broadsheet newspaper.

    We were surrounded by rather large, elderly men who had absolutely no interest in her. A few of these gents had nylon grey work socks placed strategically to avoid sunburn. I was grateful for that, but worried about athletes foot.

    I am not sure what this confession does for your analogy, but often the realities are quite different.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,368
    CD13 said:

    With a Labour majority at the next GE, you could always apply the Remain strategy. Clearly it's wrong, so prevaricate, claim its too difficult to change all the apparatus of government, and press for another GE within days. Once they start to appoint ministers, you can claim we have more information and we've changed our minds as a result.

    Jezza seems to have lost some of his novelty value. The fact Labour isn't miles ahead is down to him. A hung parliament? Rule by referendum overseen by the CS?

    And he will almost certainly have to publish all the legal advice he is given.

    I am wondering if that would include security briefings on key appointments. There is one that would be especially - interesting. As in - disastrous.
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 1,047
    edited December 2018


    The belief that all land ultimately belongs to the state and tax policy is levied accordingly is bad economics. It’s impoverished every country where it’s been tried.

    The belief that the state can tax pretty much anything it can measure without needing to own it is pretty standard market economics, and has made all the countries that are currently rich rich.
    And there was me thinking that rich countries were those that encouraged private enterprise, business investment, R&D and set tax rates accordingly. Don’t see anything recognisably Corbynite in any of those.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,368

    A Corbyn Gov will mean economic amageddon. Businesses who can leave the U.K., will. McDonnell will impose his manifesto land tax proposals effectively charging people extortionate rents for living in their own homes; we’ll see a plethora of strikes and the lack of investment we are seeing now will get worse. There will be an huge outflow of capital before he takes office. There will be a ton of money chucked at public services and it won’t make bit of difference to them. Renationalisation will be expensive and pointless achieving nothing. Inflation will be back with a vengeance forcing interest rates up and there will be a run on the £.

    The Tories will have no one to blame but themselves for sticking with May for so long and making Corbyn so appealing to so many.

    A land tax is good neo-liberal economics. I don't doubt that the voters would hate it, but it's definitely not the kind of thing that would cause capital flight.
    The belief that all land ultimately belongs to the state and tax policy is levied accordingly is bad economics. It’s impoverished every country where it’s been tried.
    Hmmm.

    Just in case you were unaware of this, since the Battle of Hastings in 1066 all land in the country *does* technically belong to the Crown.

    That is why the title deeds of a property refer to 'freehold.' You hold it free of any third party directly from the King or in this case, queen.

    And it can be taken away - most commonly in the Middle Ages by Bill of Attainder.
  • Sandpit said:

    So long as you tax land *instead* of income amd consumption. Somehow I don’t think that’s John McDonnell’s plan.

    Well, where we're heading is that regardless of what John McDonnell *wants* to tax, a lot of the traditional revenue sources can be evaded by shifting assets into different jurisdictions, so unless you want to radically reduce the size of the state, land (and other immobile property) and consumption are going to have to take more of the burden.
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 1,047
    edited December 2018
    ydoethur said:

    A Corbyn Gov will mean economic amageddon. Businesses who can leave the U.K., will. McDonnell will impose his manifesto land tax proposals effectively charging people extortionate rents for living in their own homes; we’ll see a plethora of strikes and the lack of investment we are seeing now will get worse. There will be an huge outflow of capital before he takes office. There will be a ton of money chucked at public services and it won’t make bit of difference to them. Renationalisation will be expensive and pointless achieving nothing. Inflation will be back with a vengeance forcing interest rates up and there will be a run on the £.

    The Tories will have no one to blame but themselves for sticking with May for so long and making Corbyn so appealing to so many.

    A land tax is good neo-liberal economics. I don't doubt that the voters would hate it, but it's definitely not the kind of thing that would cause capital flight.
    The belief that all land ultimately belongs to the state and tax policy is levied accordingly is bad economics. It’s impoverished every country where it’s been tried.
    Hmmm.

    Just in case you were unaware of this, since the Battle of Hastings in 1066 all land in the country *does* technically belong to the Crown.

    That is why the title deeds of a property refer to 'freehold.' You hold it free of any third party directly from the King or in this case, queen.

    And it can be taken away - most commonly in the Middle Ages by Bill of Attainder.
    How many bills of attainder have there been since say the last 100 or 200 years and council tax is not the wealth tax included in Labour’s last manifesto.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,368
    Jonathan said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Quite, Mr. Sandpit.

    Socialists view tax the same way a nymphomaniac views a nude beach. They just can't help themselves, and **** everything.

    I was once dragged to a nude beach (UK) by my girlfriend. It wasn't much fun. I remained dressed, hiding behind a broadsheet newspaper.

    We were surrounded by rather large, elderly men who had absolutely no interest in her. A few of these gents had nylon grey work socks placed strategically to avoid sunburn. I was grateful for that, but worried about athletes foot.

    I am not sure what this confession does for your analogy, but often the realities are quite different.
    A hole was discovered yesterday in the wall surrounding a nudist colony.

    Police are looking into it.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,368

    ydoethur said:

    A Corbyn Gov will mean economic amageddon. Businesses who can leave the U.K., will. McDonnell will impose his manifesto land tax proposals effectively charging people extortionate rents for living in their own homes; we’ll see a plethora of strikes and the lack of investment we are seeing now will get worse. There will be an huge outflow of capital before he takes office. There will be a ton of money chucked at public services and it won’t make bit of difference to them. Renationalisation will be expensive and pointless achieving nothing. Inflation will be back with a vengeance forcing interest rates up and there will be a run on the £.

    The Tories will have no one to blame but themselves for sticking with May for so long and making Corbyn so appealing to so many.

    A land tax is good neo-liberal economics. I don't doubt that the voters would hate it, but it's definitely not the kind of thing that would cause capital flight.
    The belief that all land ultimately belongs to the state and tax policy is levied accordingly is bad economics. It’s impoverished every country where it’s been tried.
    Hmmm.

    Just in case you were unaware of this, since the Battle of Hastings in 1066 all land in the country *does* technically belong to the Crown.

    That is why the title deeds of a property refer to 'freehold.' You hold it free of any third party directly from the King or in this case, queen.

    And it can be taken away - most commonly in the Middle Ages by Bill of Attainder.
    How many bills of attainder have there been since say the last 100 or 200 years and council tax is not the wealth tax included in Labour’s last manifesto.
    None since 1870 when it was officially abolished.

    However, it is part of the basis of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which has been used more than once.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 13,145

    A Corbyn Gov will mean economic amageddon. Businesses who can leave the U.K., will. McDonnell will impose his manifesto land tax proposals effectively charging people extortionate rents for living in their own homes; we’ll see a plethora of strikes and the lack of investment we are seeing now will get worse. There will be an huge outflow of capital before he takes office. There will be a ton of money chucked at public services and it won’t make bit of difference to them. Renationalisation will be expensive and pointless achieving nothing. Inflation will be back with a vengeance forcing interest rates up and there will be a run on the £.

    The Tories will have no one to blame but themselves for sticking with May for so long and making Corbyn so appealing to so many.

    A land tax is good neo-liberal economics. I don't doubt that the voters would hate it, but it's definitely not the kind of thing that would cause capital flight.
    Well, we don't have to imagine the disastrous conseqeunces of a Right-Wing Tory government; we're living it!
    There is nothing right wing or Tory about this Gov. it’s effectively a single issue Gov and much more like Miliband’s Labour than anything recognisably Conservative. It’s just another tax and spend Gov and the most anti-business Gov I can remember in Britain whilst totally ignoring consumer interests and rights.
    Perhaps they should go back to being, well, conservative, looking after the economy, preserving the union and deciding not to thrust the country through uncharted radical change?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 9,830
    edited December 2018


    The belief that all land ultimately belongs to the state and tax policy is levied accordingly is bad economics. It’s impoverished every country where it’s been tried.

    The belief that the state can tax pretty much anything it can measure without needing to own it is pretty standard market economics, and has made all the countries that are currently rich rich.
    And there was me thinking that rich countries were those that encouraged private enterprise, business investment, R&D and set tax rates accordingly. Don’t see anything recognisably Corbynite in any of those.
    What we were talking about was taxing land, which is a great way to encourage private enterprise and business investment. It encourages the land to be put to practical use, and is much less damaging than alternative revenue sources like taxing work.

    I'm not saying Corbyn's whole platform consists of excellent neo-liberal policies like this, and sadly it doesn't, but in fairness I think it's mostly a lot more "meh", "doh" and occasionally "ffs" than "aaaargh".
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    A Corbyn Gov will mean economic amageddon. Businesses who can leave the U.K., will. McDonnell will impose his manifesto land tax proposals effectively charging people extortionate rents for living in their own homes; we’ll see a plethora of strikes and the lack of investment we are seeing now will get worse. There will be an huge outflow of capital before he takes office. There will be a ton of money chucked at public services and it won’t make bit of difference to them. Renationalisation will be expensive and pointless achieving nothing. Inflation will be back with a vengeance forcing interest rates up and there will be a run on the £.

    The Tories will have no one to blame but themselves for sticking with May for so long and making Corbyn so appealing to so many.

    A land tax is good neo-liberal economics. I don't doubt that the voters would hate it, but it's definitely not the kind of thing that would cause capital flight.
    The belief that all land ultimately belongs to the state and tax policy is levied accordingly is bad economics. It’s impoverished every country where it’s been tried.
    Hmmm.

    Just in case you were unaware of this, since the Battle of Hastings in 1066 all land in the country *does* technically belong to the Crown.

    That is why the title deeds of a property refer to 'freehold.' You hold it free of any third party directly from the King or in this case, queen.

    And it can be taken away - most commonly in the Middle Ages by Bill of Attainder.
    How many bills of attainder have there been since say the last 100 or 200 years and council tax is not the wealth tax included in Labour’s last manifesto.
    None since 1870 when it was officially abolished.

    However, it is part of the basis of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which has been used more than once.
    Well as living is not currently a crime, you don’t have a point then, do you.
  • Mr. Jonathan, I did specify a nymphomaniac was involved.

    I could have used a satyriasic but, excepting those who've read my fantastic book, Sir Edric's Kingdom, most people are unfamiliar with the term (it's essentially a male nymphomaniac).

    Mr. Jessop, socialism's given the world the USSR and Venezuela, to name but two.

    The incumbent May Government is pretty damned mediocre, at best, and in some areas absolutely bloody dreadful. That doesn't mean socialism is a good thing. It doesn't mean it's better even than the status quo.

  • The belief that all land ultimately belongs to the state and tax policy is levied accordingly is bad economics. It’s impoverished every country where it’s been tried.

    The belief that the state can tax pretty much anything it can measure without needing to own it is pretty standard market economics, and has made all the countries that are currently rich rich.
    And there was me thinking that rich countries were those that encouraged private enterprise, business investment, R&D and set tax rates accordingly. Don’t see anything recognisably Corbynite in any of those.
    What we were talking about was taxing land, which is a great way to encourage private enterprise and business investment. It encourages the land to be put to practical use, and is much less damaging than alternative revenue sources like taxing work.

    I'm not saying Corbyn's whole platform consists of excellent neo-liberal policies like this, but in fairness I think it's mostly a lot more "meh", "doh" and occasionally "ffs" than "aaaargh".

    It’s impoversihed every country where it’s been tried.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 6,293

    Jonathan said:

    Interesting article.

    The country needs a change of government. There are clearly competent people on the opposition bench ready to go. Like many Labour voters, I have very serious concerns about Macdonell, Corbyn and their advisors. I rely on the backbenchers like Cooper and ministers like Starmer keeping them from descending into a backward ideological crusade.

    A Labour govt with a small working majority could be interesting.

    The Labour leadership needs mass deselections before the next election. Without them any Corbyn government would be a prisoner of the PLP. But mass deselections make a Labour victory even less likely. It is an exquisite dilemma.

    I don't see any real desire for mass deselections in Labour, though the Tory Brexiteers will be more keen.

  • The belief that all land ultimately belongs to the state and tax policy is levied accordingly is bad economics. It’s impoverished every country where it’s been tried.

    The belief that the state can tax pretty much anything it can measure without needing to own it is pretty standard market economics, and has made all the countries that are currently rich rich.
    And there was me thinking that rich countries were those that encouraged private enterprise, business investment, R&D and set tax rates accordingly. Don’t see anything recognisably Corbynite in any of those.
    What we were talking about was taxing land, which is a great way to encourage private enterprise and business investment. It encourages the land to be put to practical use, and is much less damaging than alternative revenue sources like taxing work.

    I'm not saying Corbyn's whole platform consists of excellent neo-liberal policies like this, but in fairness I think it's mostly a lot more "meh", "doh" and occasionally "ffs" than "aaaargh".

    It’s impoversihed every country where it’s been tried.
    What has, land tax??? Or what, specifically?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,368


    The belief that all land ultimately belongs to the state and tax policy is levied accordingly is bad economics. It’s impoverished every country where it’s been tried.

    The belief that the state can tax pretty much anything it can measure without needing to own it is pretty standard market economics, and has made all the countries that are currently rich rich.
    And there was me thinking that rich countries were those that encouraged private enterprise, business investment, R&D and set tax rates accordingly. Don’t see anything recognisably Corbynite in any of those.
    What we were talking about was taxing land, which is a great way to encourage private enterprise and business investment. It encourages the land to be put to practical use, and is much less damaging than alternative revenue sources like taxing work.

    I'm not saying Corbyn's whole platform consists of excellent neo-liberal policies like this, and sadly it doesn't, but in fairness I think it's mostly a lot more "meh", "doh" and occasionally "ffs" than "aaaargh".
    His policies would cause the total implosion of the national education system at all levels within eighteen months.

    That's definitely an 'aaaargh' moment from my point of view.
  • IanB2 said:

    A Corbyn Gov will mean economic amageddon. Businesses who can leave the U.K., will. McDonnell will impose his manifesto land tax proposals effectively charging people extortionate rents for living in their own homes; we’ll see a plethora of strikes and the lack of investment we are seeing now will get worse. There will be an huge outflow of capital before he takes office. There will be a ton of money chucked at public services and it won’t make bit of difference to them. Renationalisation will be expensive and pointless achieving nothing. Inflation will be back with a vengeance forcing interest rates up and there will be a run on the £.

    The Tories will have no one to blame but themselves for sticking with May for so long and making Corbyn so appealing to so many.

    A land tax is good neo-liberal economics. I don't doubt that the voters would hate it, but it's definitely not the kind of thing that would cause capital flight.
    Well, we don't have to imagine the disastrous conseqeunces of a Right-Wing Tory government; we're living it!
    There is nothing right wing or Tory about this Gov. it’s effectively a single issue Gov and much more like Miliband’s Labour than anything recognisably Conservative. It’s just another tax and spend Gov and the most anti-business Gov I can remember in Britain whilst totally ignoring consumer interests and rights.
    Perhaps they should go back to being, well, conservative, looking after the economy, preserving the union and deciding not to thrust the country through uncharted radical change?
    There is a difference between radical change and economic suicide. Thatcherism was radical and Britain benefitted enormously. Joining the EEC was radical and most people would be quite happy if it was still the EEC, focussed on trade, rather than an EU pursuing ever c,over Union.

    The trouble with Brexit is that we have a Gov who don’t believe in it, have no preparations for it, have no plans for what to do with it and simply see it not for the opportunities it presents and more as a damage limitation exercise.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,368
    edited December 2018

    ydoethur said:

    How many bills of attainder have there been since say the last 100 or 200 years and council tax is not the wealth tax included in Labour’s last manifesto.

    None since 1870 when it was officially abolished.

    However, it is part of the basis of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which has been used more than once.
    Well as living is not currently a crime, you don’t have a point then, do you.
    That post makes no sense. Is there a typing error in it?

    Edit - ah, I think I understand what you're trying to get at. You are saying that property can only be taken away from someone who's committed a crime, therefore it doesn't apply to the rest. What I am saying, however, is that your original claim that land in this country is not the property of the state is wrong. It is true that normally it is only forfeited under unusual conditions, but if anyone chose to change that approach the fact that in strict law land belongs to the crown gives them the opportunity to do so. It's not hard to see it being exploited in that way over e.g. Land banks, or council house repossession (mooted a few weeks back).
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 22,517

    Mr. Jonathan, I did specify a nymphomaniac was involved.

    I could have used a satyriasic but, excepting those who've read my fantastic book, Sir Edric's Kingdom, most people are unfamiliar with the term (it's essentially a male nymphomaniac).

    Mr. Jessop, socialism's given the world the USSR and Venezuela, to name but two.

    The incumbent May Government is pretty damned mediocre, at best, and in some areas absolutely bloody dreadful. That doesn't mean socialism is a good thing. It doesn't mean it's better even than the status quo.

    May's government is pretty damned mediocre, at best, for many reasons. The biggest and most glaring one is that she's had Brexit to deal with, instead of the real issues that effect the GBP.

    But it's pointless warning about the dangers of socialism when the Conservatives are up to their necks in another failed ideology: Brexit.

    (That does not mean leaving the EU is right or wrong; it means the way too many Conservatives treat it as the most important issue facing the country, worth risking massive disruption and pain for, is absolutely stupid and damaging to the Conservative brand.)

  • The belief that all land ultimately belongs to the state and tax policy is levied accordingly is bad economics. It’s impoverished every country where it’s been tried.

    The belief that the state can tax pretty much anything it can measure without needing to own it is pretty standard market economics, and has made all the countries that are currently rich rich.
    And there was me thinking that rich countries were those that encouraged private enterprise, business investment, R&D and set tax rates accordingly. Don’t see anything recognisably Corbynite in any of those.
    And you see that in May's government? Brexit has destroyed all of that - business has provided detailed analysis of hard Brexit contrary to cakeist Tory fantasies only to be told "fuck business". With the understandable continuation of lack of business investment. R&D is what bits are begged by government - such as the cash given to Dyson only for manufacturing to be announced elsewhere. Then we have the governments cuts to physical infrastructure etc etc.

    What you will get with a Corbyn investment is Capitalism 101. Borrow. Invest in projects which deliver a return on that investment. Receive more income. Repeat the cycle to drive further growth. Slashing investment and services to the bone - what the Tories do - is reverse capitalism.
  • Odds on the deal being approved 11 December now out to 7 on Ladbrokes.

    I think it's likelier to be cancelled (itself a farce) than actually pass.

    The second referendum odds are unchanged at 2.25 for it happening and 1.57 on it not.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 2,688



    What you will get with a Corbyn investment is Capitalism 101. Borrow. Invest in projects which deliver a return on that investment. Receive more income. Repeat the cycle to drive further growth. Slashing investment and services to the bone - what the Tories do - is reverse capitalism.

    Capitalism = private ownership of the means of production and the extraction of surplus value from the non-captial owning (working) class for the accumulation of more capital. See Vol.1 of Marx's Capital.

    No useful or conventional definition of it has anything to do with borrowing or investing.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 1,226


    The belief that all land ultimately belongs to the state and tax policy is levied accordingly is bad economics. It’s impoverished every country where it’s been tried.

    The belief that the state can tax pretty much anything it can measure without needing to own it is pretty standard market economics, and has made all the countries that are currently rich rich.
    And there was me thinking that rich countries were those that encouraged private enterprise, business investment, R&D and set tax rates accordingly. Don’t see anything recognisably Corbynite in any of those.
    And you see that in May's government? Brexit has destroyed all of that - business has provided detailed analysis of hard Brexit contrary to cakeist Tory fantasies only to be told "fuck business". With the understandable continuation of lack of business investment. R&D is what bits are begged by government - such as the cash given to Dyson only for manufacturing to be announced elsewhere. Then we have the governments cuts to physical infrastructure etc etc.

    What you will get with a Corbyn investment is Capitalism 101. Borrow. Invest in projects which deliver a return on that investment. Receive more income. Repeat the cycle to drive further growth. Slashing investment and services to the bone - what the Tories do - is reverse capitalism.
    Which is why I think this is such a clever attack video. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the economics of it all, it explains the point you have just made in a way the layman will find easy to understand and agree with.

    https://www.facebook.com/JeremyCorbynMP/videos/308880119676193/

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,274
    ydoethur said:


    The belief that all land ultimately belongs to the state and tax policy is levied accordingly is bad economics. It’s impoverished every country where it’s been tried.

    The belief that the state can tax pretty much anything it can measure without needing to own it is pretty standard market economics, and has made all the countries that are currently rich rich.
    And there was me thinking that rich countries were those that encouraged private enterprise, business investment, R&D and set tax rates accordingly. Don’t see anything recognisably Corbynite in any of those.
    What we were talking about was taxing land, which is a great way to encourage private enterprise and business investment. It encourages the land to be put to practical use, and is much less damaging than alternative revenue sources like taxing work.

    I'm not saying Corbyn's whole platform consists of excellent neo-liberal policies like this, and sadly it doesn't, but in fairness I think it's mostly a lot more "meh", "doh" and occasionally "ffs" than "aaaargh".
    His policies would cause the total implosion of the national education system at all levels within eighteen months.

    That's definitely an 'aaaargh' moment from my point of view.
    About the only Corbyn Labour policy I'm aware of is the abolition of tuition fees. While not thought through, it would appear, I don't see how it would cause the total implosion you fear.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,368

    ydoethur said:


    The belief that all land ultimately belongs to the state and tax policy is levied accordingly is bad economics. It’s impoverished every country where it’s been tried.

    The belief that the state can tax pretty much anything it can measure without needing to own it is pretty standard market economics, and has made all the countries that are currently rich rich.
    And there was me thinking that rich countries were those that encouraged private enterprise, business investment, R&D and set tax rates accordingly. Don’t see anything recognisably Corbynite in any of those.
    What we were talking about was taxing land, which is a great way to encourage private enterprise and business investment. It encourages the land to be put to practical use, and is much less damaging than alternative revenue sources like taxing work.

    I'm not saying Corbyn's whole platform consists of excellent neo-liberal policies like this, and sadly it doesn't, but in fairness I think it's mostly a lot more "meh", "doh" and occasionally "ffs" than "aaaargh".
    His policies would cause the total implosion of the national education system at all levels within eighteen months.

    That's definitely an 'aaaargh' moment from my point of view.
    About the only Corbyn Labour policy I'm aware of is the abolition of tuition fees. While not thought through, it would appear, I don't see how it would cause the total implosion you fear.
    I've explained many times, I'm not going to go through in detail again. Basically, he made promises of huge funding increases for state schools funded by major extra levies in private schools. However, since the real (and probably intended) effect of these extra levies would be to close almost all private schools, whose pupils would then have to be state educated, what he was really proposing was a major increase in pupil numbers and no extra money. That would certainly tip the already grossly overstretched state sector over the edge.
  • Mr. Doethur, socialism's always been better at causing harm than ushering in the mythical dawn of utopia.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,274
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:


    The belief that all land ultimately belongs to the state and tax policy is levied accordingly is bad economics. It’s impoverished every country where it’s been tried.

    The belief that the state can tax pretty much anything it can measure without needing to own it is pretty standard market economics, and has made all the countries that are currently rich rich.
    And there was me thinking that rich countries were those that encouraged private enterprise, business investment, R&D and set tax rates accordingly. Don’t see anything recognisably Corbynite in any of those.
    What we were talking about was taxing land, which is a great way to encourage private enterprise and business investment. It encourages the land to be put to practical use, and is much less damaging than alternative revenue sources like taxing work.

    I'm not saying Corbyn's whole platform consists of excellent neo-liberal policies like this, and sadly it doesn't, but in fairness I think it's mostly a lot more "meh", "doh" and occasionally "ffs" than "aaaargh".
    His policies would cause the total implosion of the national education system at all levels within eighteen months.

    That's definitely an 'aaaargh' moment from my point of view.
    About the only Corbyn Labour policy I'm aware of is the abolition of tuition fees. While not thought through, it would appear, I don't see how it would cause the total implosion you fear.
    I've explained many times, I'm not going to go through in detail again. Basically, he made promises of huge funding increases for state schools funded by major extra levies in private schools. However, since the real (and probably intended) effect of these extra levies would be to close almost all private schools, whose pupils would then have to be state educated, what he was really proposing was a major increase in pupil numbers and no extra money. That would certainly tip the already grossly overstretched state sector over the edge.
    Ah, thanks. I don't think either that or tuition fees are 'first six months' actions, though, are they?
  • ydoethur said:


    His policies would cause the total implosion of the national education system at all levels within eighteen months.

    That's definitely an 'aaaargh' moment from my point of view.

    Not saying you're wrong but what's the specific policy that you think does that? I know there's the bit where they abolish tuition fees and bring back grants with non-existent money, but I'm assuming they won't really do that unless they actually manage to beg, borrow or steal the money for it.

    And TBF, if they really did BINO, they'd have a *lot* of extra tax revenue to play with compared to the current May-Barnier Brexit baseline that nobody's admitting to.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,368
    edited December 2018

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:


    The belief that all land ultimately belongs to the state and tax policy is levied accordingly is bad economics. It’s impoverished every country where it’s been tried.

    The belief that the state can tax pretty much anything it can measure without needing to own it is pretty standard market economics, and has made all the countries that are currently rich rich.
    And there was me thinking that rich countries were those that encouraged private enterprise, business investment, R&D and set tax rates accordingly. Don’t see anything recognisably Corbynite in any of those.
    What we were talking about was taxing land, which is a great way to encourage private enterprise and business investment. It encourages the land to be put to practical use, and is much less damaging than alternative revenue sources like taxing work.

    I'm not saying Corbyn's whole platform consists of excellent neo-liberal policies like this, and sadly it doesn't, but in fairness I think it's mostly a lot more "meh", "doh" and occasionally "ffs" than "aaaargh".
    His policies would cause the total implosion of the national education system at all levels within eighteen months.

    That's definitely an 'aaaargh' moment from my point of view.
    About the only Corbyn Labour policy I'm aware of is the abolition of tuition fees. While not thought through, it would appear, I don't see how it would cause the total implosion you fear.
    I've explained many times, I'm not going to go through in detail again. Basically, he made promises of huge funding increases for state schools funded by major extra levies in private schools. However, since the real (and probably intended) effect of these extra levies would be to close almost all private schools, whose pupils would then have to be state educated, what he was really proposing was a major increase in pupil numbers and no extra money. That would certainly tip the already grossly overstretched state sector over the edge.
    Ah, thanks. I don't think either that or tuition fees are 'first six months' actions, though, are they?
    First budget, as they are tax changes. So yes, it would be.

    Tuition fees, maybe not. But it would be early because it would be a key demand of his voters. I That's why I went for 'eighteen months.'
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,274

    ydoethur said:


    His policies would cause the total implosion of the national education system at all levels within eighteen months.

    That's definitely an 'aaaargh' moment from my point of view.

    Not saying you're wrong but what's the specific policy that you think does that? I know there's the bit where they abolish tuition fees and bring back grants with non-existent money, but I'm assuming they won't really do that unless they actually manage to beg, borrow or steal the money for it.

    And TBF, if they really did BINO, they'd have a *lot* of extra tax revenue to play with compared to the current May-Barnier Brexit baseline that nobody's admitting to.
    Thanks Mr EiT; not just me then.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,459
    Sandpit said:

    Good article Nick, although I still don't see how Corbyn can become PM this side of an election.

    Given the current Parliamentary arithmetic, the DUP only need to abstain for the Conservatives to have a majority - so unless the DUP decide to prop up Corbyn or there are a number of Conservative defections (Hi Sarah Woolaston and Heidi Allen!) then Mr Meeks is correct that some form of Con government will likely run until 2022.

    Well quite. The Tories may be hopelessly split on Brexit but they're united in fear of a socialist Government. Now, it is just about possible that any Conservative MPs who defected to the Liberal Democrats would then follow a whipped decision by their new party leader to put Corbyn into bat, but it's very unlikely that there would be enough defections to tip the scales decisively in favour of a leftist rainbow coalition. And nobody intending to run on any flavour of right-wing platform is ever going to countenance voting Corbyn into office - even if the Conservative Party splits. The DUP also loathe him.

    Consequently, unless things get really complicated and both major parties split over Brexit, the Parliamentary mathematics surrounding the fall of the Conservative Government point inexorably toward an immediate General Election. This is also why the prospect of No Deal seems so high: May has run out of road, the chances of her successor being a more committed Brexiteer are excellent, and the Pro-EU wing of the Tory Party would most likely be all but wiped out if they marched off in disgust. Regardless of the exact course of events there would be a General Election soon after, most of the Conservative vote are Leavers and could presumably be relied upon to back the Brexiteer platform, and anyway the space in British politics for a mushy, soft centrist, Europhile alternative is already occupied by the Liberal Democrats. All they would achieve would be to end up collecting their first dole payments from a socialist Government.

    Remember, however awful or anticlimactic a No Deal Brexit might turn out to be, the prize for all of this for the Conservative Party (and for so many of us in the country who are sick to death of arguments about Europe dominating all else) is that it would finally put the issue to bed. There'd be precious little appetite in the country, after everything that's happened, for trying to get back into the club again, and the other members probably wouldn't want us anyway.

    This is, ultimately, why very passionate Remainers are so utterly desperate to stop us leaving at any cost: because once we've gone, we've gone. It is reasonable to conclude that re-joining, as a political position, would be very much like republicanism: theoretically appealing to a quarter or even a third of the electorate when asked about it by opinion pollsters, but in practice a niche obsession for a small handful and a total irrelevance for the overwhelming majority.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 9,830
    edited December 2018
    ydoethur said:


    I've explained many times, I'm not going to go through in detail again. Basically, he made promises of huge funding increases for state schools funded by major extra levies in private schools. However, since the real (and probably intended) effect of these extra levies would be to close almost all private schools, whose pupils would then have to be state educated, what he was really proposing was a major increase in pupil numbers and no extra money. That would certainly tip the already grossly overstretched state sector over the edge.

    Isn't it just VAT on school fees or are you thinking of something else? I can see how you can argue that putting VAT on school fees will raise less than it sounds because some of the parents will move their kids to state schools and the state will then have to pay to educate them, but closing *almost all* the private schools doesn't sound like a likely outcome.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,368

    ydoethur said:


    His policies would cause the total implosion of the national education system at all levels within eighteen months.

    That's definitely an 'aaaargh' moment from my point of view.

    Not saying you're wrong but what's the specific policy that you think does that? I know there's the bit where they abolish tuition fees and bring back grants with non-existent money, but I'm assuming they won't really do that unless they actually manage to beg, borrow or steal the money for it.
    I think you assume wrongly. I would say Corbyn - who later admitted he didn't have a clue what he was talking about and didn't appreciate the costs involved - would do it first and run out of money second. Forward planning is not his strong point.

    I explain about schools upthread.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,368
    edited December 2018

    ydoethur said:


    I've explained many times, I'm not going to go through in detail again. Basically, he made promises of huge funding increases for state schools funded by major extra levies in private schools. However, since the real (and probably intended) effect of these extra levies would be to close almost all private schools, whose pupils would then have to be state educated, what he was really proposing was a major increase in pupil numbers and no extra money. That would certainly tip the already grossly overstretched state sector over the edge.

    Isn't it just VAT on school fees or are you thinking of something else? I can see how you can argue that putting VAT on school fees will raise less than it sounds because some of the parents will move their kids to state schools, but closing almost all the private schools doesn't sound like a likely outcome.
    No. He also intended to fund free school meals by a huge levy on private school meals, and charge business rates for all schools including charities. The last would have less of an impact than he realises because actually most private schools are already businesses, but as most private secondary schools are charities there would be a brutal pinch there. They are already, contrary to popular belief, struggling due to pension changes. Of the nine private schools in Staffordshire, I would say only one is financially secure at this moment and three have actually gone bankrupt and had to be rescued in the last few years.

    As I say, the cumulative effect of the three would be to bankrupt the private school sector, and that was obviously the intention. But the bizarre way he thought that using penal taxes that as a result would raise no money to fund improvements in the state sector should have alerted anyone to the fact that his policy offering was a nonsense.
  • kyf_100 said:

    Which is why I think this is such a clever attack video. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the economics of it all, it explains the point you have just made in a way the layman will find easy to understand and agree with.

    https://www.facebook.com/JeremyCorbynMP/videos/308880119676193/

    Capitalism (the working example not the Marx definition) used to operate on these cycles. And what's more the big players in capitalism understood that in order to sell their product/service they needed not just a product that people wanted to but but also consumers with the wherewithal to buy. That means leaving people with surplus income where the cost of living is lower than wages so that they can consume.

    When consumption wasn't enough for the quarterly stock exchange reporting cycle (having been perfectly fine on the old longer cycles of not having everything floated) a way was found to give people more money- credit. After the crash credit has been tighter and we had a decade of wage stagnation and soaring living costs. Which is how we have so many people working and just about managing.

    How to break the cycle? Invest. The Tories have burned through a trillion quid without investing as austerity slowly braked economic performance. Let the government borrow at near zero interest rates, slam the money into economy driving infrastructure projects, offer business incentive to invest* and we breathe life back into an economy that actually works for most people
  • ydoethur said:

    He also intended to fund free school meals by a huge levy on private school meals, and charge business rates for all schools including charities.

    Was that in the manifesto???
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,459


    Pathetic if true. Firstly, why would they believe anything she says? Secondly, how does her leaving after the Deal is rammed through change any of the things they hate about it? Thirdly, how does throwing around petty threats about Christmas do anything to foster good will?
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 6,137
    There is no way the Tories will let Corbyn in.. just now way period. I agree with Antifrank.. crawl to 2022.. another three yrs and Corbyn may be gone and Momentum might have destroyed Labour's chances with loony left candidates replacing the Labour centre.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 3,826
    Interesting article but not much on Brexit. Still think there are too many on the left who hope it will just go away.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 3,342
    edited December 2018
    Pulpstar said:

    alex. said:

    Just on Brexit (for a change). Can somebody explain why did Benn amendment (if accepted and passed) doesn’t effectively rule out a referendum as it means that there is no alternative to remain that can be included on the ballot paper?

    Doesn't it simply kill the bill there and then ?
    No i agree (which is one reason why the amendment should be ruled out of order). But my point is that its inclusion and passing would effectively prove that however much the HoC may decide that it wants a referendum with Remain on the ballot paper, any attempt to legislate for one would very likely fall for lack of an acceptable second option on the ballot paper.
Sign In or Register to comment.