Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

45 minutes ago, Boss said:

A vote for 16 year olds is the dumbest thing ever. As if the country doesn't have enough uninformed people voting as it is. 

So people who are old enough to work and pay tax are, for two years, too dumb to vote? (Luckily, they all become more competent voters on their 18th birthday, somehow. )

[AngryOfTuebrook]

25 minutes ago, A Red said:

The other thing about that list is how its going to be paid for? I see some tax rises mentioned that are perfectly fine but i'm pretty sure they are not enough to pay for it all, therefore I guess they will have to print or borrow to plug the gap. Does that not mean higher inflation? 

No offence, like, but I'm pretty sure that the people who developed those policies have put more effort into costing them than you just did.

[A Red]

1 minute ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

No offence, like, but I'm pretty sure that the people who developed those policies have put more effort into costing them than you just did.

Fair point, I've put very little effort in. How much would it cost for all the nationalisations dotted around that list? How would it be paid for?  Would it have any effect on inflation? How long would it take? 

 

[Boss]

The thing is, the nationalisation of various industries would have no net effect on the consumer, it'd be negligible at most. It'd cost an absolute fortune to do it though. 

[aRdja]

14 minutes ago, Boss said:

The thing is, the nationalisation of various industries would have no net effect on the consumer, it'd be negligible at most. It'd cost an absolute fortune to do it though. 

I disagree. If you believe that is indeed the case the you may as well privatise the NHS, no? Huge lump sum of money for the state, and the people are still taken care of. 

 

Profit seeking companies run their business first and foremost to make cash. If a product isn’t very profitable then they’d invest less on it and put more money on more profitable products. Do you think provisions of health, electricity, or water should be run that way?

[SasaS]

20 minutes ago, A Red said:

Fair point, I've put very little effort in. How much would it cost for all the nationalisations dotted around that list? How would it be paid for?  Would it have any effect on inflation? How long would it take? 

 

You know they are just going to tax the hell out of that garden of yours don't you? Let's just hope at least the part under rewilding is exempt.

[A Red]

3 minutes ago, SasaS said:

You know they are just going to tax the hell out of that garden of yours don't you? Let's just hope at least the part under rewilding is exempt.

God I hope so.

 

You got any ideas as to how all the nationalisations will be paid for? 

[The Guest]

22 minutes ago, Boss said:

The thing is, the nationalisation of various industries would have no net effect on the consumer, it'd be negligible at most. It'd cost an absolute fortune to do it though. 

That’s such utter shite.  Various services here cost substantially more than anywhere else in Europe.  It’s not hard to say why.

 

Some industries like water or rail are just not suitable for capitalism.  It’s not like you can get to the train station of a morning and 3/4 trains turn up and you decide which train you fancy getting on based on whether you want a cheap one or expensive one which has the best seats. The same with water.  Most of these industries are complete necessities as well so taking water and energy for example the government has to regulate the actual price of it.  It’s a complete nonsense.

 

This fantasy that privatisation drives the cost of things down because of competition is fucking laughable.  Anyone that’s worked in any company in the private sector will tell you.  There’s completely unaccountable knobheads who work everywhere and they survive at private companies just as long as they do anywhere else.  All the privatisation of these industries means in reality is another level of blame that can be shifted somewhere so that people can say “oh there’s nothing we can do about it” as all these Tory knobheads are making a killing with their shares in these companies

[Brownie]

5 minutes ago, A Red said:

God I hope so.

 

You got any ideas as to how all the nationalisations will be paid for? 

Well they’ve just come up with £2bn extra from somewhere for no deal preparations so where there’s a will...

[Brownie]

I really don’t understand anyone who argues against certain things being nationalised, such as utilities, health and transport. Those are basic things that people need in life, there should be no profits being made by greedy cunt shareholders.

 

Fair enough, argue against the supposed socialist mentality of the state owning all property, that’s a bullshit theory but it’s now what is on the table.

[SasaS]

10 minutes ago, A Red said:

God I hope so.

 

You got any ideas as to how all the nationalisations will be paid for? 

 

[Brownie]

With regards to rail nationalisation, I assume they wouldn’t do it all in one go as there are different franchises with different contracts running aren’t there? So you could do it one by one and keep the fares as they are for a bit to help with subsiding it.

[SasaS]

7 minutes ago, Brownie said:

I really don’t understand anyone who argues against certain things being nationalised, such as utilities, health and transport. Those are basic things that people need in life, there should be no profits being made by greedy cunt shareholders.

 

Fair enough, argue against the supposed socialist mentality of the state owning all property, that’s a bullshit theory but it’s now what is on the table.

Utilities and transport, if nationalized, also need to operate with some profit or at least at break even point, otherwise you are subsidising consumers irrespective of their means. You can protect customers of privatized utilities through the system of price controls, in case of monopolies. Type of ownership is much less important than actual market control and efficiency, state ownership is no guarantee of efficiency, quite the contrary. I don't understand why it would be better if electricity is provided by a government owned monopoly, instead of by competing providers?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

47 minutes ago, A Red said:

Fair point, I've put very little effort in. How much would it cost for all the nationalisations dotted around that list? How would it be paid for?  Would it have any effect on inflation? How long would it take? 

 

The nationalisations, in a lot of the cases (such as rail) pay for themselves, because there are already huge sums of public money going into the supposedly private services.  Also, of course, when you nationalise stuff, the country gains an asset.

 

As for inflation, if the "basket of goods" it's calculated on includes stuff like utility bills, public transport fares, etc. then it could even have a positive effect. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

2 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

The Price Cap has done for quite a few jobs already, although lots of my mates have been made redundant on the back of it. Privatisation will do many more. 

So, you're saying that a price cap on a privatised utility has negative impacts...

[AngryOfTuebrook]

39 minutes ago, SasaS said:

You know they are just going to tax the hell out of that garden of yours don't you? Let's just hope at least the part under rewilding is exempt.

5-year tax freeze on incomes below £80k.

 

What the Hell is A Red growing in that garden of his, because I fancy a piece of that action!

[Rico1304]

6 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

So, you're saying that a price cap on a privatised utility has negative impacts...

Yes.  I’ve spoken to people at BEIS and Ofgem who think it was a terrible idea. You?

[Brownie]

14 minutes ago, SasaS said:

Utilities and transport, if nationalized, also need to operate with some profit or at least at break even point, otherwise you are subsidising consumers irrespective of their means. You can protect customers of privatized utilities through the system of price controls, in case of monopolies. Type of ownership is much less important than actual market control and efficiency, state ownership is no guarantee of efficiency, quite the contrary. I don't understand why it would be better if electricity is provided by a government owned monopoly, instead of by competing providers?

Have you seen the rate of rail fare increases over the last 10-15 years, compared to inflation etc? Have you seen how old the trains are that are being used? Have you seen how much profit these companies make?

 

Of course anything ran by the state needs to break even or make money but when it does that money is being reinvested back into the government pot which you’d expect to be redirected for running, maintenance, innovation etc.

 

Governments have shown time and time again that any regulations or controls they put in do not always work, so bring it back in house.

[Rico1304]

37 minutes ago, The Guest said:

That’s such utter shite.  Various services here cost substantially more than anywhere else in Europe.  It’s not hard to say why.

 

Some industries like water or rail are just not suitable for capitalism.  It’s not like you can get to the train station of a morning and 3/4 trains turn up and you decide which train you fancy getting on based on whether you want a cheap one or expensive one which has the best seats. The same with water.  Most of these industries are complete necessities as well so taking water and energy for example the government has to regulate the actual price of it.  It’s a complete nonsense.

 

This fantasy that privatisation drives the cost of things down because of competition is fucking laughable.  Anyone that’s worked in any company in the private sector will tell you.  There’s completely unaccountable knobheads who work everywhere and they survive at private companies just as long as they do anywhere else.  All the privatisation of these industries means in reality is another level of blame that can be shifted somewhere so that people can say “oh there’s nothing we can do about it” as all these Tory knobheads are making a killing with their shares in these companies

Energy is cheaper in the Uk than Europe. 

[Captain Howdy]

I never use the rail network and haven’t done so for many many years , I did regularly use British Rail back then and it was an absolute disaster, it was fair to say it was a running joke, if it was re-nationalised it would have to be run far better than when I used it. That said whether the privatised version is as bad or worse I’ve no idea as I’ve never used it.

[A Red]

11 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

5-year tax freeze on incomes below £80k.

 

What the Hell is A Red growing in that garden of his, because I fancy a piece of that action!

£35K is the worth of my garden, hardly makes me a landowner. It is a nice garden though

[A Red]

38 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

So you dont know then

[SasaS]

Just now, A Red said:

So you dont know then

 

How would I know? I can only speculate there would be a lot more of QE.

[A Red]

I dont think I saw anything in that list about unions. Will it be compulsory or will there be incentives (other than the obvious ones) to join a union? Could there be competing unions in one workplace?

[Captain Howdy]

As for the list there is some good stuff on it but like A Red whilst I’m no economist or accountant it looks incredibly expensive, I would be surprised if we didn’t run into trouble trying to pay for it.