Jeremy Corbyn

Quoted from Zmariner

Always civilised. I do not watch the shows that you refer to but I do not like the idea of unlimited benefits which Corbyn propose and my opinions are very much my own. Tuition fees will cost me as my kids are likely to go to Uni but I do not expect the state to pay for the education of my kids. I am not a fan of consistent quantative easing. Some of Corbyn's ideals are good but he will be faced by a lot of people like me and he will need to capture middle England or he will go the same way as Foot/Kinnock and friends. Great guys but unelectable.
I do not want to see endless money thrown at the NHS and I do not want open door immigration as I can not see the point on debates on stretched public services when net immigration is so high. Each to their own with politics but Corbyn would need to change his thinking on several issues to get close to getting my vote

Hmmm, I think the idea of 'unlimited' benefits is just the return to the previous system where families were entitled to all of the relevant benefits rather than having them cut off at some arbitrary level. If the individual benefits are designed to fit a need, how can it be sensible to arbitrarily cut some of them? The need still exists. The main one the cap is intended to deal with is the ballooning levels of housing benefit. This is because the social housing sector has been pretty much destroyed since the days of Thatcher and, due to the government's idiotic policies of pumping up the housing market, rents are simply unaffortable for most of the poorest in society. As it stands, the further reduced benefits cap stands to make it impossible for the poor to live in large areas of the country. Check the two charts from Shelter in the following article which illustrate this clearly:

http://www.theguardian.com/soc.....-cities-unaffordable

Why don't you think the state should pay for University education? I didn't pay any fees at University. Neither did Cameron, Osborne, Miliband, Brown, Blair, Clegg etc. A number of my friends at University received full grants to help pay their way through their studies as well though most of these also had jobs. Bringing in fees was probably one of the worst things that New Labour did because it gave the Conservatives an excuse to ramp them up ludicrously. We've followed the American model where students now leave University with enormous debts. In the majority of civilised countries, further education remains almost free because governments understand there is a need to develop workers to help the economy.

I think you're actually perhaps a little misinformed about People's QE. There has been £375 billion of QE so far, and most of the benefit of this have gone into the pockets of the bankers and the financial sector (which is obviously good for you!). The thought process behind PQE isn't to run it consistently regardless of the state of the economy, just when it would benefit the economy. There is a pretty good chance there will be another economic crisis during the next parliament (wobbles in China, gigantic housing bubble rebuilding, increased household debt etc) and, with interest rates at almost zero and inflation at zero there is little conventional policy could do to deal with this. PQE through a National Investment Bank would be one thing that could work - even it's critics agree with this.

It is absolutely clear that one thing we need to do is spend a heck of a lot more on the NHS. It's close to collapsse at present due to lack of funds. We've got an aging population, the baby boomers are retiring and people are living much longer due to medical advances. Nowhere has never had this sort of age balance in the past so it is inevitable that healthcare and social spending is going to have to increase an enormous amount to pay for it all.

Quoted from Grim74

And he's off...............talk about going off on a tangent you just can't stick to the thread topic can you....... But wait are you deliberately hijacking this thread in order to take the conversation away from your poster boy?  maybe you feel he's not getting the credit on here you believe he deserves, so you blind us with graphs, bar charts, line charts, and pie charts I didn't see this many charts in 12 years of school your a fanatic! do you live on your own?

...

So let's cut out the biased propaganda shall we and stick to the facts....on the economy for a start,  ONS, IMF, CPI yes for example and I will agree, but let's not forget it's early days yet I could mention the inflation figures that supports the chief economic advisors claim the economy is on track, but let's wait and see at least for the cumulative financial year to date figures that will give us a clear indication of where we are heading.

I'm disgusted that you think it's funny what Blair and Mandelson did to this country but this can wait for now because it's not the place, So try not to drift of to much in future Maringer and you might find more people responding to your posts. Good night 😑

Here are the only parts of your post I'll bother to reply to. Firstly, let me make it very clear:

Every one of my comments in that post was in response to a point in your post.

If you want to criticise me for going off-topic, stick to the topic yourself.

However, I really don't see what your problem here is in any case. Corbyn's arrival on the national stage of politics has opened up debate about all aspects of policy - economy, benefits, investment, immigration etc. Quite reasonable that we should discuss them in this thread.

The fact that you didn't bother to offer a substantive response to any of the points made doesn't surprise me because I am well used to it, as I am to the litany of insults in the rest of your post, veiled or otherwise.

Onto your two final paragraphs. Nice to see you are in agreement that using facts and statistics as the base of information. From reading the information (not propaganda) I have posted in those various links, you must now agree Osborne's "Plan A" didn't work and he needed to change his policy. It should also mean that you now agree that Balls and the IMF weren't incorrect by saying his plans would lead to a double-dip recession, because his plans clearly changed a great deal. I'm sure you will agree?

I'm not quite sure what you think the inflation figures show. The sole mandate of the Bank of England is price stability and the aim is for a 2% inflation target, something they have failed to achieve. Low inflation (verging on deflation) is a bad thing for the economy as a whole - many economists actually advocate an inflation target of 4% because this would give room for manouevre when another economic shock hits. If we avoid heading into deflation later this year, I'll be surprised.

Finally, the idea that I am a fan of the New Labour project (Blair and Mandelson especially) is just nonsense. I've merely pointed out that the Tory claims (echoed by you) that they were massively overspending when in power is simply not true. You can certainly argue that some of their spending was poorly-targetted (and acceleration the Tory policy of PFI was an abomination), but ridiculous overspending? That's a lie.

Quoted from Zmariner

Always civilised. I do not watch the shows that you refer to but I do not like the idea of unlimited benefits which Corbyn propose and my opinions are very much my own. Tuition fees will cost me as my kids are likely to go to Uni but I do not expect the state to pay for the education of my kids. I am not a fan of consistent quantative easing. Some of Corbyn's ideals are good but he will be faced by a lot of people like me and he will need to capture middle England or he will go the same way as Foot/Kinnock and friends. Great guys but unelectable.
I do not want to see endless money thrown at the NHS and I do not want open door immigration as I can not see the point on debates on stretched public services when net immigration is so high. Each to their own with politics but Corbyn would need to change his thinking on several issues to get close to getting my vote

Disagree with you not expecting the state to pay for education but a good sensible straight to the point post never the less, it's good we now have alternative views you could of been mistaken for being on the socialists members board at times on here.

Unbelievable he appoints  a vegan as his shadow environment secretary, I was going to say you couldn't make it up but then again it's the mad hatter Jeremy Corbyrn we are talking about.
Oh well that's him alienated from the farming industry -
http://www.independent.co.uk/n.....-kerry-10515299.html

Quoted from Maringer

Hmmm, I think the idea of 'unlimited' benefits is just the return to the previous system where families were entitled to all of the relevant benefits rather than having them cut off at some arbitrary level. If the individual benefits are designed to fit a need, how can it be sensible to arbitrarily cut some of them? The need still exists. The main one the cap is intended to deal with is the ballooning levels of housing benefit. This is because the social housing sector has been pretty much destroyed since the days of Thatcher and, due to the government's idiotic policies of pumping up the housing market, rents are simply unaffortable for most of the poorest in society. As it stands, the further reduced benefits cap stands to make it impossible for the poor to live in large areas of the country. Check the two charts from Shelter in the following article which illustrate this clearly:
i do not like the housing market but interest rate rises will calm it. I have sympathy with the unemployed although to be fair there are some areas that I could not afford to live in and so would move. Anyway I am very happy in the Grimsby area
http://www.theguardian.com/soc.....-cities-unaffordable

Why don't you think the state should pay for University education? I didn't pay any fees at University. Neither did Cameron, Osborne, Miliband, Brown, Blair, Clegg etc. A number of my friends at University received full grants to help pay their way through their studies as well though most of these also had jobs. Bringing in fees was probably one of the worst things that New Labour did because it gave the Conservatives an excuse to ramp them up ludicrously. We've followed the American model where students now leave University with enormous debts. In the majority of civilised countries, further education remains almost free because governments understand there is a need to develop workers to help the economy.
I only agree where the course is linked to a service that we need. Education for the sake of it does not serve the majority and I would prefer a German or Swiss based approach providing apprenticeship type skills as I am ultra sceptical about some courses and would not fund my own kids through a fine arts degree. I worked all through Uni and got a very small grant.

I think you're actually perhaps a little misinformed about People's QE. There has been £375 billion of QE so far, and most of the benefit of this have gone into the pockets of the bankers and the financial sector (which is obviously good for you!). The thought process behind PQE isn't to run it consistently regardless of the state of the economy, just when it would benefit the economy. There is a pretty good chance there will be another economic crisis during the next parliament (wobbles in China, gigantic housing bubble rebuilding, increased household debt etc) and, with interest rates at almost zero and inflation at zero there is little conventional policy could do to deal with this. PQE through a National Investment Bank would be one thing that could work - even it's critics agree with this.

It is absolutely clear that one thing we need to do is spend a heck of a lot more on the NHS. It's close to collapsse at present due to lack of funds. We've got an aging population, the baby boomers are retiring and people are living much longer due to medical advances. Nowhere has never had this sort of age balance in the past so it is inevitable that healthcare and social spending is going to have to increase an enormous amount to pay for it all.

Who do you propose pays for everything? if we lived in an environment with unlimited money no problem, you can easily spend yourself poor.
Nothing is perfect and we will all take our own road in politics based upon our life experiences. I am from a socialist background and could accept a moderate approach. Corbyn is way too off centre for me and as I said before open door immigration concerns me

Quoted from Zmariner

Who do you propose pays for everything? if we lived in an environment with unlimited money no problem, you can easily spend yourself poor.
Nothing is perfect and we will all take our own road in politics based upon our life experiences. I am from a socialist background and could accept a moderate approach. Corbyn is way too off centre for me and as I said before open door immigration concerns me

Sorry the delay in responding. Busy DIY-ish weekend.  

I was actually rather dismayed by McDonnell's comments towards the end of last week where he appeared to commit to signing up to Osborne's ludicrous idea of running a government surplus by 2020:

http://www.theguardian.com/pol.....ive-within-our-means

As has been noted earlier in the thread, for this to be possible, this would require an enormous increase in both private debt and business investment. The first is a ridiculous concept as private debt is high enough as thing stands and the second isn't likely to occur as business investment is very low at present with no indication anything is to change.

Reading more closely, there is some nuance there:

Quoted Text

But he indicates that his support for the charter is qualified because he believes that only the current account should be balanced to give the government space to borrow to fund infrastructure projects.

In other words, he's still rather different from Osborne who claims to want a surplus after all spending is considered, one of the reasons that government investment in the economy is incredibly low in comparison to our economic competitors which is undoubtedly why our productivity is also appalling. I'd imagine that McDonnell is simply providing lip service to Osborne's idea of a surplus as he knows it is pretty impossible for it to occur in current economic conditions. Can't say I'm happy with this ploy because it still lets the Tories control the narrative and misinforms the electorate that the 'deficit' is the be all and end all at the moment. It also strikes me as disingenuous, but then I suppose it is no more dishonest than Osborne's policies.

Anyway, despite my misgivings about McDonnell because of these comments, he's pretty clear as to how he would close the deficit. Increase taxes on the wealthy instead of cutting them as Osborne has done, crack down on tax evasion/avoidance by big business and the wealthy, implement a financial transaction levy, a policy which has widespread support throughout much of the world. Stop the race to the bottom with corporate taxation - our levels of Corporation Tax are already the lowest in the G20, but Osborne is cutting them even further!

I notice on the BBC this morning that McDonnell was interviewed and was asked if his tax plans were targetting the middle class! That is pretty much right out of the Tory propaganda handbook. Just because the top level income tax rate has been brought down to 45%, doesn't mean that raising it higher isn't possible. During the 1950s and 1960s when the economy saw enormous growth, the highest level of income tax was 90%! Nobody is advocating that sort of a level now but a rise north of 50% for the wealthiest, perhaps up to 60% would certainly be acceptable to most. Also a lot of other taxation reform is required and some investment in HMRC would be welcome. Tens of thousands of jobs in HMRC have been lost since 2010 and the service is reportedly pretty much unable to carry out proper investigations any longer which will only help tax evaders. Oh, one area of tax reform which might be a great idea would be to implement a General Anti-Avoidance Rule as they have in India. This would nullify the complex financial structures used by the likes of Gary Barlow/Jimmy Carr/Lots of wealthy people to try and avoid paying their taxes. Quite reasonable to think that the wealthy shouldn't be able to avoid paying their taxes just because they have expensive lawyers/accountants trying to work the system in their favour. After all, the man on the street can't benefit in the same way! Whether or not this will be part of the Corbyn/McDonnell policy remains to be seen.

Another thing which I think is a good idea would be to invest in building lots of new social housing to help sort out the crisis in the housing market. Housing benefit cost is currently circa £25 billion per annum and this is only set to rise. Not sure if this will become McDonnell's policy either, but this report released today notes that investing to build an additional 100,000 homes per year in the council house/housing association sector would actually make a net saving (£5.8 billion is the figure calculated) due to the reduction in housing benefit payments! With the ballooning increase in housing benefit (number of working families receiving it has more than doubled in the past 5 years), it seems very sensible for government-led building, especially when the private sector has no interest in building the necessary numbers of affordable homes. First link is to the Guardian article discussing the policy, second link is to the report itself:

http://www.theguardian.com/pol.....ng-drive-since-1970s

https://smithinstitutethinktank.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/high-aspirations-sound-foundations.pdf

"Oh, one area of tax reform which might be a great idea would be to implement a General Anti-Avoidance Rule as they have in India. This would nullify the complex financial structures used by the likes of Gary Barlow/Jimmy Carr/Lots of wealthy people to try and avoid paying their taxes. Quite reasonable to think that the wealthy shouldn't be able to avoid paying their taxes just because they have expensive lawyers/accountants trying to work the system in their favour. After all, the man on the street can't benefit in the same way! Whether or not this will be part of the Corbyn/McDonnell policy remains to be seen."

We've had a GAAR for a couple of years now.  It was brought in by the Coalition in FA 2013 (I think).  It's an idea that had been doing the rounds for a long period of time (and wasn't invented by Richard Murphy as he claimed in last week's Guardian).  The previous Labour government could have introduced one but preferred to make piecemeal changes to plug loopholes that their own badly worded legislation created.  Also, I'm really not sure you should be holding out India's tax system as a paragon of virtue.  It is the most complicated and unstable regime I've come across.  Have a look into Minimum Alternative Tax for example.  It is the very definition of an omnishambles.

I will also take issue with the general narrative around McDonnell's speech today regarding Starbucks etal.  He claims that he'll make sure they pay their fair share but doesn't say how.  I wonder if he supports the diverted profits tax which has been introduced (unwisely in my opinion) by GO.  Or the OECDs base erosion and profit shifting initiative which the UK has been at the forefront of?

I agree with you regarding social house building, the more we can build, the better, as long as it's of a reasonable standard.  I think this was supposed to be the point of revitalising right to buy, with all proceeds ploughed into new housing but I think we discussed a while ago that this simply wasn't happening.  This has to be made a priority for a variety of reasons as you stated.  It will have a positive impact on the deficit (albeit with a short term impact on debt) so even I could buy into that!  Obviously, it should also help towards addressing the housing crisis.  We can't afford to be dogmatic with such an important issue.  
  

Quoted from Town Monkey

We've had a GAAR for a couple of years now.  It was brought in by the Coalition in FA 2013 (I think).  It's an idea that had been doing the rounds for a long period of time (and wasn't invented by Richard Murphy as he claimed in last week's Guardian).  The previous Labour government could have introduced one but preferred to make piecemeal changes to plug loopholes that their own badly worded legislation created.  Also, I'm really not sure you should be holding out India's tax system as a paragon of virtue.  It is the most complicated and unstable regime I've come across.  Have a look into Minimum Alternative Tax for example.  It is the very definition of an omnishambles.

I will also take issue with the general narrative around McDonnell's speech today regarding Starbucks etal.  He claims that he'll make sure they pay their fair share but doesn't say how.  I wonder if he supports the diverted profits tax which has been introduced (unwisely in my opinion) by GO.  Or the OECDs base erosion and profit shifting initiative which the UK has been at the forefront of?

I agree with you regarding social house building, the more we can build, the better, as long as it's of a reasonable standard.  I think this was supposed to be the point of revitalising right to buy, with all proceeds ploughed into new housing but I think we discussed a while ago that this simply wasn't happening.  This has to be made a priority for a variety of reasons as you stated.  It will have a positive impact on the deficit (albeit with a short term impact on debt) so even I could buy into that!  Obviously, it should also help towards addressing the housing crisis.  We can't afford to be dogmatic with such an important issue.  
  

Good point about the GAAR. I've seen articles where Murphy and others discuss a General Anti-Avoidance Principle earlier this year and assumed it was the same thing as a GAAR. Turns out it isn't!

Murphy's views on the GAAR which has been implemented don't appear to be very flattering and I note that Michael Meacher tabled a private members bill in 2012 trying to promote Murphy's Anti-Avoidance Principle instead. Didn't get anywhere, of course.

I've only heard the odd bit from McDonnell's speech today and did wonder what his plans were about the big corporations who have arranged their affairs to avoid taxes such as Starbucks and the like. I was under the impression that this sort of issue could only really be resolved if all of the major economies get together and come to an agreement with matching legislation so the corporations can't get away with shifting the funds around? I guessed McDonnell's comments here were just a soundbyte, rather than anything, but I've only heard snatches of what was said. One thing is for sure, something has to change because it is anti-competitive that these corporations can dodge taxes that their smaller competitors are bound to pay.

I know that Murphy is very unimpressed with Osborne's further reductions in Corporation Tax - he notes that Osborne is trying to turn the UK into a tax haven!

I really do think that housing is one of the biggest issues at present. We're bound to be plunged into another recession sooner rather than later if the bubble continues to be inflated, aided and abetted by the BTL bunch and stupid government subsidies. It is simply unsustainable.

Haven't read all the posts but my dad made probably the defining points as to why Corbin will fail. A you cannot distespect the royal family in any way an b by refusing to push the button in any scenario he has cooked his goose. You can't win an election by maintaining those two stances.sorry I admire him greatly but that is electoral suicide

The Queen is worthy of respect for the way she has comported herself over the years. The rest of them? Pretty much worthless. Anybody who thinks you should show them respect just because they are 'royal' is a bloody idiot.

Good to see that Corbyn has stood by his guns as regards the nuclear issue. I'd imagine it might well cost a number of votes but, if you think about it sensibly, if we were to ever get to the stage where 'pushing the button' occurred, we'd be dead in any case. The Cold War is over. Russia is jockeying for position with the rest of the world but know that if atomic weapons were ever launched, we'd be talking Mutually Assured Destruction. In such a case, our small island would be obliterated.

Other than Russia, who does Trident 'deter'? Why would we ever launch a nuclear attack on China, India or Pakistan? Or why would they ever launch an attack on us? North Korea are attempting to develop ICBMs (years away from this yet) but know they would be obliterated in the event of any atomic hostilities against another nation. Personally, I'm not entirely convinced that Iran actually are looking to build nuclear weapons but, if they are, why would we ever be a target? We're 3,500 miles away from each other! Again, they know they would be obliterated in the event of any attack.

As it stands, Trident is nothing more than a British subsidy for the American defence complex. They manufacture and service the missiles, a service for which we pay for handsomely. All the other NATO members (with the exception of France, who manufacture their own Nuclear weapons) don't need to bother with a deterrent themselves because, well, they are NATO members.

It just doesn't make sense, I'm afraid. Polaris (another expensive American import) didn't work very well in stopping the Argentines in the 1980s, did it? Since the Cold War ended, the idea of a nuclear deterrent just no longer works.