Support NeoGAF

[PJV3]

Corbyn could have lots of sensible policies but it wouldn't matter, he still wouldn't become PM and would still lose a lot of seats.

He's irrelevant really, I sort of listen to him and forget he exists 10 minutes later. The early Tory attack on his character and the farce of the PLP botched coup have made him unelectable.

 

[Jezbollah]

The worst thing about this whole saga is that there are serious questions that need to be answered by Jeremy Hunt as regards to the current status of the NHS, but Corbyn is just succeeding on burying that with his buffoonary.

 

[Beefy]

The worst thing about this whole saga is that there are serious questions that need to be answered by Jeremy Hunt as regards to the current status of the NHS, but Corbyn is just succeeding on burying that with his buffoonary.

Yep

Cunt: "NHS is fine"
NHS Insider: " 459 people were left in corridors for 12hrs+ on one day"

 

[Uzzy]

Aye, but the point is this: putting a cap on earnings would lower the disparity but, in real terms, would leave less money to spend on, say, public services.

I'd need a napkin and a biro to work out how true that is.

This does seem to be from the "Trump playbook" - i.e. say some mad shit, hope it resonates, ignore that it would be nearly impossible to implement and possibly disastrous if you somehow managed it.

Because we have masses of funds to spend on public services now, right?

Look, an arbitrary cap would be an extreme solution that wouldn't work for a variety of reasons, many pointed out by Maledict. So if that was all Corbyn proposed I'd be pretty annoyed. Good thing that he's proposed a bunch of possible changes to improve the pay ratio between executives and workers, which certainly would help to bring people out of poverty.

 

[Razzer]

So with this talk of income inequality, could anybody point to some good resources on why inequality was falling between 1950 and 1970?

(I may be wrong on that ofc)

 

[JonnyDBrit]

So with this talk of income inequality, could anybody point to some good resources on why inequality was falling between 1950 and 1970?

(I may be wrong on that ofc)

While not sure on specific resources, there are a few factors I can point out thanks to my history classes. Probably the most prominent is the fact that the United States pumped a lot of money into the redevlopment of Europe after the second world war under the Marshall Plan, mainly as a bulwark against the spread of communism by not giving people reason to think communism would increase their prosperity. We received about a quarter of the 12 billion dollars (in late 1940s money - hundreds of billions today), and so reaped the benefits of that investment.

 

[Roberto Larcos]

So with this talk of income inequality, could anybody point to some good resources on why inequality was falling between 1950 and 1970?

(I may be wrong on that ofc)

Labour governments of Attlee and Wilson, expansion of the welfare state, extremely high top rate of tax are all contributing factors.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

So with this talk of income inequality, could anybody point to some good resources on why inequality was falling between 1950 and 1970?

(I may be wrong on that ofc)

As a very rough rule of thumb, wealthy people are paid mostly from capital, and poorer people mostly from labour. Between 1950-1970, there were enormous gains in labour productivity - large portions of growth in GDP were due to more productive labour, which reflected in labour pay. This ratio began to shift post-1975 or so, though, and instead most growth was composed of capital productivity increases, meaning most economic growth went to people who were already wealthy.

If you're looking for the deeper structural causes of that, you'd be looking at things like the 1944 Education Act, which provided secondary education for all (you'd be surprised how many poor people had only limited grasp of literacy and numeracy as late as the early 1950s), the generous welfare state and strong focus on retraining, Europe's relative labour advantage compared to the capital-heavy US in the post-war reconstruction period, limitations on the uses and abuses of financial capital, and so on.

Piketty's Capital is quite good at talking about this.

 

[Razzer]

While not sure on specific resources, there are a few factors I can point out thanks to my history classes. Probably the most prominent is the fact that the United States pumped a lot of money into the redevlopment of Europe after the second world war under the Marshall Plan, mainly as a bulwark against the spread of communism by not giving people reason to think communism would increase their prosperity. We received about a quarter of the 12 billion dollars (in late 1940s money - hundreds of billions today), and so reaped the benefits of that investment.

Labour governments of Attlee and Wilson, expansion of the welfare state, extremely high top rate of tax are all contributing factors.

As a very rough rule of thumb, wealthy people are paid mostly from capital, and poorer people mostly from labour. Between 1950-1970, there were enormous gains in labour productivity - large portions of growth in GDP were due to more productive labour, which reflected in labour pay. This ratio began to shift post-1975 or so, though, and instead most growth was composed of capital productivity increases, meaning most economic growth went to people who were already wealthy.

If you're looking for the deeper structural causes of that, you'd be looking at things like the 1944 Education Act, which provided secondary education for all (you'd be surprised how many poor people had only limited grasp of literacy and numeracy as late as the early 1950s), the generous welfare state and strong focus on retraining, Europe's relative labour advantage compared to the capital-heavy US in the post-war reconstruction period, limitations on the uses and abuses of financial capital, and so on.

Piketty's Capital is quite good at talking about this.

Thanks guys! Someday I'll actually feel knowledgeable enough to contribute to the discussion.

As a follow up, ignoring the fact that no one competent is around to implement such things, is that level of labour productivity feasible with the modern economy, with the right government policies?

 

[Roberto Larcos]

Thanks guys! Someday I'll actually feel knowledgeable enough to contribute to the discussion.

As a follow up, ignoring the fact that no one competent is around to implement such things, is that level of labour productivity feasible with the modern economy, with the right government policies?

We actually have a fairly well-documented productivity problem. Assuming a future government could find the key to bring British workers to the levels of French / German / Canadian workers, then sure - we could be far more productive.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Thanks guys! Someday I'll actually feel knowledgeable enough to contribute to the discussion.

As a follow up, ignoring the fact that no one competent is around to implement such things, is that level of labour productivity feasible with the modern economy, with the right government policies?

I think it will be much more difficult to get the rates of labour productivity we saw in the past, but we can get much better ones than we have at the moment, at least - we are performing incredibly poorly in relation to other developed economies, our recovery almost entirely has come from housing and finance.

 

[Uzzy]

I think it will be much more difficult to get the rates of labour productivity we saw in the past, but we can get much better ones than we have at the moment, at least - we are performing incredibly poorly in relation to other developed economies, our recovery almost entirely has come from housing and finance.

Which is why 'our recovery' means London and the South East's recovery.

 

[Jezbollah]

Labour MP Tristram Hunt quits to become director of Victoria and Albert Museum

Byelection will be triggered

Results from 2015:

Tristram Hunt (Labour), 12,220, 39.3%
Mick Harold (UKIP), 7,041, 22.7%
Liam Marshall-Ascough (Conservative), 7,008, 22.5%
Mark Breeze (Independent), 2,120, 6.8%
Zulfiqar Ali (Liberal Democrat), 1,296, 4.2%
Jan Zablocki (Green), 1,123, 3.6%

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Labour MP Tristram Hunt quits to become director of Victoria and Albert Museum

LDs got 20% in 2010 and will be the only Remain voice. Labour are crippled, UKIP are collapsing... Should be a fun contest, particularly because it seems like it will happen after A50 gets triggered and the drama that follows.

 

[kmag]

LDs got 20% in 2010 and will be the only Remain voice. Labour are crippled, UKIP are collapsing... Should be a fun contest, particularly because it seems like it will happen after A50 gets triggered and the drama that follows.

70% leave constituency

 

[Jackpot]

Yeah, that's going Tory. Only hope would be LD's taking a distant second or very close 3rd as an indicator for other elections.

 

[JonnyDBrit]

Labour MP Tristram Hunt quits to become director of Victoria and Albert Museum

Byelection will be triggered

Results from 2015:

Tristram Hunt (Labour), 12,220, 39.3%
Mick Harold (UKIP), 7,041, 22.7%
Liam Marshall-Ascough (Conservative), 7,008, 22.5%
Mark Breeze (Independent), 2,120, 6.8%
Zulfiqar Ali (Liberal Democrat), 1,296, 4.2%
Jan Zablocki (Green), 1,123, 3.6%

LDs got 20% in 2010 and will be the only Remain voice. Labour are crippled, UKIP are collapsing... Should be a fun contest, particularly because it seems like it will happen after A50 gets triggered and the drama that follows.

70% leave constituency

Yeah, I could see the Tories taking it pretty handily, though by how much should be rather interesting, and give extra indication as to just how much referendum preferences affect local elections.

 

[Beefy]

@britainelects
Tonight's by-election results:
Sandhill, Sunderland: LDEM gain.
Gade Valley, Three Rivers, LDEM gain.

 

[FlammableD]

@britainelects
Tonight's by-election results:
Sandhill, Sunderland: LDEM gain.
Gade Valley, Three Rivers, LDEM gain.

those are some impressive sounding swings

 

[Fernando Fernandez]

Melanie Onn’s bill to protect workers’ rights post-Brexit fell victim to filibustering in the House today.

Labour MP Melanie Onn claimed Tory backbenchers deliberately talked out an earlier bill so there was not enough time for hers to be considered by the House.

The bill sought to protect maternity pay, parental leave and paid leave after Brexit, amid fears the Government could end up watering down the rights.

Instead MPs spoke for four hours on a bill aimed at making sure small radio stations can be found on digital radio - a bill the Government supports - leaving no further time.

Tory MP Kevin Foster, who introduced the Broadcasting (Radio Multiplex Services) Bill, spoke for an hour, while Seema Kennedy gave over part of her speech to praising her favourite radio presenter.

David Nuttall listed the radio stations he normally listens to, adding: “I am an avid user of my digital radio.

“In fact, I carry it with me everywhere - at this very moment, it is in my coat pocket - and I rarely go anywhere without it.

“My digital radio is a wonderful thing. In fact, it is my second one - the first one broke, having had an unfortunate incident.”

A frustrated Ms Onn said: “By talking out the bill, the Tories have shown their true colours.

“They say that maternity pay, parental leave, and paid leave are all safe in their hands.

“But when given the opportunity to put their money where their mouths are, they instead blocked the protection of those rights in UK law, and have let down working people.”

The Great Grimsby MP argued that her bill proposed nothing more than Theresa May and Brexit Secretary David Davis had pledged.

Labour MPs fear protections could be lost if the Government repeals existing EU legislation without making hard-fought working rights primary law.

But last year Mrs May promised: “Let me be absolutely clear: existing workers’ legal rights will continue to be guaranteed in law.

“They will be guaranteed as long as I am Prime Minister. Because the Conservative party is the true workers’ party.”

Disgusting how this can still happen. They really need to look at the rules for this.

 

[Number45]

Disgusting how this can still happen. They really need to look at the rules for this.

Yeah, I don't understand how this is possible. If something is proposed and, for whatever reason, can't be heard why the fuck isn't it first on the agenda for the following session?

 

[phisheep]

Disgusting how this can still happen. They really need to look at the rules for this.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Such a bill would not in any case pass, and even if it did it would be entirely ineffective as Parliament could go ahead and do whatever it wanted anyway. There's this really annoying tendency to try to enshrine policy in law in order to make political points - both sides do it - and all it does is waste Parliamentary time.

So I'm with the Tories on this one (just like I was with Labour the last time the Tories tried this low trick).

 

[JonathanEx]

I think fillibustering is weird and probably shouldn't be a thing, but yes, waste of regulation.


But the digital radio bill is a good thing but then again I work in that area so I'm happy about that, small scale DAB licenses are a really exciting oh no wait we're not talking about that now, I'll shut up.

 

[Beefy]

So tomorrows papers all going to say May will go for a super hard Brexit with no access to the single market....

 

[Memento Mori]

As expected because it's the stupidest option available.

 

[Mindwipe]

So tomorrows papers all going to say May will go for a super hard Brexit with no access to the single market....

I feel like I should be shorting sterling right now.

 

[CyclopsRock]

She's basically just been saying the same thing over and over.

 

[sammex]

Convenient distraction to stop the news fixation on the NHS isn't it? Blame GPs and then bury it under Brexit.

 

[Pie and Beans]

"You realise you will be destroying the British economy forever, yes?"
"But...Brexit MEANS Brexit?!!!"

 

[Jezbollah]

Snap Election called in Northern Ireland for 2nd March.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-38641857

 

[CyclopsRock]

Someone at the Speccie seemed to think that the reason May is so keen on a hard Brexit is that she considers taking back control over immigration to be something that'll kill the rise of the (further) right and that if they don't, the people will elect a party that will.

 

[Zaph]

Oh, so the same reasoning Cameron used to offer a referendum?

Bullshit then, bullshit now. UKIP wasn't going to take over the country overnight (if anything, they were underrepresented given their total votes), but they would splinter the Tories (and also Labour), leaving them feeling vulnerable.

The Tories just want to stay in power at any cost.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Oh, so the same reasoning Cameron used to offer a referendum?

Bullshit then, bullshit now. UKIP wasn't going to take over the country overnight (if anything, they were underrepresented given their total votes), but they would splinter the Tories (and also Labour), leaving them feeling vulnerable.

The Tories just want to stay in power at any cost.

Both the referendum itself and - apparently - voting Leave were popular, so I think we should be careful in describing the Tories moves to make both these things happen as them trying to "stay in power at any cost". Doing things people want isn't some disgusting trait for a political party to have.

 

[FlammableD]

wrong thread

 

[Roberto Larcos]

Both the referendum itself and - apparently - voting Leave were popular, so I think we should be careful in describing the Tories moves to make both these things happen as them trying to "stay in power at any cost". Doing things people want isn't some disgusting trait for a political party to have.

People still want capital punishment. Sometimes people don't know best.

 

[Joel Was Right]

I don't understand the Corbyn hate here. Is the fact that he is not centrist the issue here? Or is he too moderate? It always seems personal.

 

[anonymous_abc]

I don't understand the Corbyn hate here. Is the fact that he is not centrist the issue here? Or is he too moderate? It always seems personal.

Even though I agree with some of his polices and consider myself very left wing he is an absolutely useless party leader and politician right now. In a time where the UK desperately needs a viable opposition to the Tories interpretation of Brexit et al.

 

[phisheep]

I don't understand the Corbyn hate here. Is the fact that he is not centrist the issue here? Or is he too moderate? It always seems personal.

Regardless of his policies, there's a fundamental problem that he doesn't seem very competent politically in bringing people onside and having and sustaining any effective message, or managerially in running the party. Pretty well any sane set of policies (and even some insane ones) can be reasonably held by a mainstream UK party if it is competently run, but no set of policies no matter how attractive will win over voters if the party isn't competent.

 

[FlammableD]

Even though I agree with some of his polices and consider myself very left wing he is an absolutely useless party leader and politician right now. In a time where the UK desperately needs a viable opposition to the Tories interpretation of Brexit et al.

This. Plus he totally lost me with the Brexit switch last week.

 

[sammex]

I don't think it's personal, for me, it's frustration with him and his team's incompetence. Some of his policies are good but he lacks the political ability to be an effective leader of the opposition in this country.

 

[SteveWD40]

I don't think it's personal, for me, it's frustration with him and his team's incompetence. Some of his policies are good but he lacks the political ability to be an effective leader of the opposition in this country.

He is also stubborn in the face of a total lack of any data that suggests he could ever win an election. His popularity amongst the left seems to blind him to the fact this is a nation of right leaning centralist's by and large, who look for a leader with a little confidence and charisma who makes all the right noises and doesn't offend anyone too much. Hence Blair and Cameron (aping Blair) winning elections.

 

[sammex]

I agree, we're firmly into the era of personality politics and Labour need to find someone with broad appeal and then develop their message around that leader. Dan Jarvis is mentioned quite a bit, down to earth and served in the military, but I'm not sure if he is charismatic enough. Alternatively, I like Clive Lewis who has a similar background albeit with less experience. Both probably have little interest in leading the party though and whoever follows JC has a massive task on their hands.

 

[Empty]

he's just a waste of everyone's time.

- the left of the labour party can't get any audience for its ideas as corbyn fumbles them constantly, is a dreadful messenger and his personal ratings are so low that ppl distrust the ideas just from them being suggested by corbyn
- the right of the labour party can't develop any coherent policy platform and message for the decade to come as they are distracted by spending all their time stating the obvious "i.e that he's fucking useless".
- meanwhile the country loses out on having an properly functioning opposition while we navigate a period of huge political change.

ultimately corbyn isn't changing the political debate in the country and pushing us leftwards (we've got way more right wing since he took over lol), he's not putting the labour party on the path to forming a government (polling is catastrophically bad and not improving) and he's not putting the government on the back foot and forcing them to get a brexit deal that works for the whole country or deal decisively with the issues of the day (may can say bland stuff like red white and blue brexit because she fundamentally doesn't fear an election defeat, the nhs crisis can just be ignored till winter is over).

what is the point of him

 

[SteveWD40]

May is clearly far more concerned with her back bench than Labour, hence Hard as fuck Brexit.

I will watch with curiosity to see how The City (her paymasters) react.

 

[CyclopsRock]

People still want capital punishment. Sometimes people don't know best.

Sure thing, but if we accept the idea of "we need to protect the people from themselves by ignoring their desires", we are into a weird place and it's hard to argue that it's more righteous than the Tories doing things their voters actually want.

 

[Maledict]

Sure thing, but if we accept the idea of "we need to protect the people from themselves by ignoring their desires", we are into a weird place and it's hard to argue that it's more righteous than the Tories doing things their voters actually want.

I've never understood this argument at all, sorry.

It is self evident that sometimes the people are wrong, and that a majority vote would be a mistake. There are countless examples - be it big moral issues like mixed race marriage, gay rights, women's votes, or even basic things like 'should taxes go up?'. That's why we have a parliament. Democracy isn't just about the will of the majority, it's also about the rights and will of the minority as well.

If we ran everything on the basis of 'did 50%+1 vote for it' this country we be a drastically different place - and one that would be significantly worse off for a huge amount of people.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I've never understood this argument at all, sorry.

It is self evident that sometimes the people are wrong, and that a majority vote would be a mistake. There are countless examples - be it big moral issues like mixed race marriage, gay rights, women's votes, or even basic things like 'should taxes go up?'. That's why we have a parliament. Democracy isn't just about the will of the majority, it's also about the rights and will of the minority as well.

If we ran everything on the basis of 'did 50%+1 vote for it' this country we be a drastically different place - and one that would be significantly worse off for a huge amount of people.

Of course, it's obvious that it happens but it's not obvious where the line is. Crab has quite eloquently posted before on how constitutional change, such as that demanded by the Brexit vote, is one of the areas where actually parliament shouldn't be sovereign, because it's about who wields power over whom (and that it's not right for parliament to - independent of the electorate - give themselves further powers than they already had, which is the case here). And I'm against capital punishment and I'm glad we don't have it in spite of popular opinion. But that doesn't mean that politicians giving people what they want is a bad thing, so an argument has to be made as for why in this specific instance the Tories are considered to be ruling in their own interests rather than in the interests of the people. Which I'm sure plenty could make, but they haven't made as per the course of this specific chain of quotations.

 

[Uzzy]

I don't understand the Corbyn hate here. Is the fact that he is not centrist the issue here? Or is he too moderate? It always seems personal.

He's an easy target to blame. He certainly has many failings, but attacking him allows for the centre-left/Blairites to ignore the wider collapse of that style of politics throughout Europe. Getting rid of Corbyn won't bridge the divide between Hampstead and Hull.

 

[twobear]

Someone at the Speccie seemed to think that the reason May is so keen on a hard Brexit is that she considers taking back control over immigration to be something that'll kill the rise of the (further) right and that if they don't, the people will elect a party that will.

We've had a greater hypothetical degree of EU immigration that we actually exercised for years, and can completely control non-EU immigration but choose not to, even when May was in the Home Office. Seems like a pretty baseless claim.

 

[Bo-Locks]

Something that's been bugging me for a while. I know the debate about the importance of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh / NI Assemblies has been done to death and the legalese debate will continue, even though it's fairly evident they're going to be bypassed / ignored.

But does anybody else find it weird how the whole EU-Canada trade deal was held up and nearly scuppered by a couple of little regions in Belgium because of opposition in their regional parliaments, but despite voting against Brexit, The Scottish and NI Parliaments / Assemblies have been rendered completely powerless. I get that Belgium is a federal country, but that's something to concentrate the mind when talking about devolution and how seemingly piss-weak devolution and the devolved parliaments actually are in the UK, even by international standards.