1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Labour Party: Where do we go from here?

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by q974739, Nov 25, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. robgmun

    Capodecina

    Joined: Apr 30, 2006

    Posts: 15,936

    Location: London

    Yup, you can feel the lurch to the left when Gorden Brown took over. But then from your point off view, Blair was right wing and Corbyn is a centralist *chuckle*
     
  2. StriderX

    Caporegime

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 25,607

    What was left wing that Brown did exactly?
     
  3. Tony Edwards

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 4, 2018

    Posts: 4,851

    So from 2007 you think they went hard socialist? And you think my political compass is broken?

    I dont think Corbyn is a centralist. I think Blair was as center, slightly center right, so as far to the right as I think any reasonable leader should be and I think thats why Cameron tried to emulate him in his interviews and public speaking while trying to hide his very right wing ideology principles.
     
  4. Gigabit

    Mobster

    Joined: Apr 9, 2012

    Posts: 11,778

    Went full socialist? They became less socialist as time went on, goodness you are deluded
     
  5. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 69,069

    Though that might sound logical on paper once you start at all having the means of production in some capacity under state control (EDIT: or seeing the post below is that ownership?) you are definitely into left territory so you can't really divide it up as half while in a central position. The whole thing generally gets very muddy though you need really to look at the agenda and direction of the leadership.

    I'd agree on that.

    IIRC Brown didn't really change much at all - he felt a certain amount of loyalty to Blair not to make sudden changes in a manner that could be read as Blair getting things wrong but he did actually disagree quite a bit with Blair and would have (supposedly) in time moved some things away from the direction Blair had taken them... supposedly.
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2019
  6. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,777

    Location: Plymouth

    Your position is wrong, because you are using only ownership, not ownership and control through regulation, to define the scale.

    At the far right of the economic scale, you have no restrictions on ownership, and only contract enforcement between individuals as a state role.

    As you pull towards the centre, the amount of state regulation and intervention increases, initially through regulation and state intervention such as taxation and redistribution, before that turns into state ownership, and eventually state monopolisation once you pass the centre point. Furthermore, individual policies pull against each other to determine overall position.

    This puts social democracy (free market, taxation and redistribution) around the centre, with democratic socialism and communism to the left of it, and less supportive societies to the right. Likewise, some more market restrictive, but less supportive variants also in the centre.
     
  7. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,777

    Location: Plymouth

    They didn't go full socialist, but they certainly became more socialist after the first term. The first term, brown broadly followed Ken Clarkes spending and taxation plans, gave the bank of England independence and massively expanded pfi spending. By contrast, the second term saw the introduction of tax credits, massive increases in public sector monopoly spending and so on.
     
  8. Tony Edwards

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 4, 2018

    Posts: 4,851

    I think this maybe where the problem is.

    To me those things you mentioned as being socialist are not a necessarily requirement of socialism. To me they are just the right things to do. Now even if they had done mass social housing even that to me isnt so much as socialist just the obvious thing to do. The country needs them so get them done.

    Same as police, council, education, health and social care funding. Not socialist, just the right thing to do.

    It like saying where do you get your morals from if you arent a christian.
     
  9. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,777

    Location: Plymouth

    To be fair, I actually agree with you. The phrase should have been more left wing not more socialist, but I stuck with the incorrect terminology used by the other posters.

    Where we probably disagree is more around the methods of funding (borrowing vs unfair taxation increases vs fair taxation increases) and whether all problems can be solved simply by increasing funding (they can't).

    I don't oppose funding the things you mention, I oppose funding them through unfair taxation practices and spending more than necessary to achieve the aims due to a total failure to correctly and efficiently manage the service, which is a totally different argument.
     
  10. Tony Edwards

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 4, 2018

    Posts: 4,851

    Thats great but where do we get the money from if we know we need those things to be a decent society? Im not saying just throw money at everything, but it must be properly funded.

    Dont get me wrong I get where you are coming from but where does the money come from if we dont get it from the most available source ie wealth or at least generated wealth?
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2019
  11. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,777

    Location: Plymouth

    You get it from everyone, rather than allowing the majority to shift the burden to a minority. That way you get the structural incentives to have good, efficient services as inefficiencies are passed to everyone, and everyone has a clear stake in the situation. It also helps prevent state spending on things that aren't actually necessary when the increases in cost hit everyone.
     
  12. RDM

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 1, 2007

    Posts: 20,495

    What this really means though is a shift in taxes to the middle classes. You literally cannot tax the lower earners more without significant social costs, so any form of flat taxation will mean that the burden will fall on middle earners if you want to raise anything of the same amount of taxes. There are most definitely savings to be made, but nowhere near enough to reduce taxation across the board by getting rid of the higher rate of tax.
     
  13. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 69,069

    It is a good question and I don't think as solved as simply as Dolph's answer but neither do two wrongs make a right - the only fair (to everyone) way to do it is a far more gradual phasing in and changing of the system.
     
  14. chrcoluk

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 27, 2015

    Posts: 4,852

    he was neoliberal.
     
  15. chrcoluk

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 27, 2015

    Posts: 4,852

    I am ok with borrowing to fund "some" spending, after all its an investment in the country.

    However when it comes to taxation the only sane way to tax is to weight it more towards those who have the means to pay (wealthier entities). This you see as unfair. As if you looking as it from an individualist point of view instead of society point of view. I see it as taxing society, you see it as taxing individuals. For me life's aim is to survive, for people to provide for each other, and have as much enjoyment as possible, I dont know what you see it as but I get the impression you may see it as some kind of game to collect as money as possible for yourself. What you consider as "fair" taxation (taxing everyone the same) just isnt viable, it either means we massively under collect in tax or the poor massively over pay vs their ability to pay. It would simply be given back to the poor via benefits, like increased tax credits or something, so they would only be paying more tax on paper but not in practice. This is why the concept of the living wage was introduced as it was realised it is a stupid situation for a person to be both paying tax and then getting the money back again via tax credits because their net income is too low.

    Another way of putting it is we have capitalism, its the system in place for this country and will be for a long time to come, capitalism by its very nature has highly variable levels of income for different people, society accepts this, and I assume you accept it. So if we accept such a highly lopsided income structure why do you have issues with lopsided tax structure to go with it? As long as the net income still remains higher, then its fine, its not like rich people are been taxed to the point that they are poorer then those with lower gross earnings.

    Now if you can come up with a way to maintain levels of tax needed for the spending we need, whilst lowering tax on the wealthy "and" not increasing tax on the poor sending them in poverty, I am all ears.
     
  16. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,777

    Location: Plymouth

    Spending and investment are not interchangeable synonyms. Spending can be investment, but not all spending is investment, investment implies a return and a multiplier. Most state spending is just spending.

    I already have, a negative income tax process used to provide a universal basic income. That gives the flat percentage rate of tax, along with the support mechanism, and the interaction of the two results in a variable marginal rate that tends towards the flat rate as you go up the income scale. It achieves both your position that society needs to look after the low paid with my position that the state shouldn't treat people differently based on arbitrary factors.
     
  17. chrcoluk

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 27, 2015

    Posts: 4,852

    So you support a universal basic income now?
     
  18. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,777

    Location: Plymouth

    I have done for years.
     
  19. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,777

    Location: Plymouth

    Just remember, antisemitism is no barrier to office in labour

    PoliticsHome.com: EXCL Labour's new head of membership shared video claiming anti-semitism was smear against Jeremy Corbyn.

    https://www.politicshome.com/news/u...excl-labours-new-head-membership-shared-video

    And the lawyer leaves to save his own career from the stench of defending racism.

    The Independent: Labour antisemitism: Party plunged into chaos as top lawyer quits role.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ns-investigation-gordon-nardell-a8990766.html
     
  20. Tony Edwards

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 4, 2018

    Posts: 4,851

    Morning Dolph. Another day another dollar for you I see.

    It must be hard for you seeing all the disastrous things the Tory leadership candidates are saying they want to do. Like lowering taxes, fox hunting repeal, getting rid of the sugar tax, making freeports and getting money from dodgy donors. It must be so frustrating for you not being able to sing from the roof tops while Rome burns.

    Thank god for Labours antisemitism aye.
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2019
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.