Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[TheHowieLama]

You seem incapable when spelling expletives -- worrying.

[Megadrive Man]

2 hours ago, Leyton388 said:

I've voted labour all my life but wont be voting for them again as they are an utter joke. 

Interestingly for the first time in my life I feel very strongly about supporting/voting Labour.

 

Specifically what is about the current party that you don't agree with?

[Leyton388]

1 hour ago, MegadriveMan said:

Interestingly for the first time in my life I feel very strongly about supporting/voting Labour.

 

Specifically what is about the current party that you don't agree with?

There are a few things but most importantly the anti semitic issues that have dogged the party, the thought of Dianne Abbott being home secretary and their weird brexit stance where they will negotiate a deal with the EU then campaign against their own deal in the event of a second referendum.

 

Also Corbyn has done nothing but want an election the past 2 years and said once the ben bill was passed labour would vote for an election and when the bill passed he still voted against one. 

 

I've got a feeling labour are going to be decimated in the GE with leave labour voters voting UKIP or the brexit party just like in the EU elections.

 

 

[ZonkoVille77]

9 minutes ago, Leyton388 said:

There are a few things but most importantly the anti semitic issues that have dogged the party, the thought of Dianne Abbott being home secretary and their weird brexit stance where they will negotiate a deal with the EU then campaign against their own deal in the event of a second referendum.

 

Also Corbyn has done nothing but want an election the past 2 years and said once the ben bill was passed labour would vote for an election and when the bill passed he still voted against one. 

 

I've got a feeling labour are going to be decimated in the GE with leave labour voters voting UKIP or the brexit party just like in the EU elections.

 

 

 

Take a look at Rachel Riley here. 

[cloggypop]

 

Ben Bill. Probably in Corbyn's allotment of evil. 

[TheHowieLama]

The left handed fella looks uncomfortable.

[Strontium]

22 minutes ago, cloggypop said:

 

Ben Bill. Probably in Corbyn's allotment of evil. 

 

Yep, he's just out of shot, sitting on that fence in the background. 

 

(With apologies to AoT)

[AngryOfTuebrook]

31 minutes ago, Leyton388 said:

There are a few things but most importantly the anti semitic issues that have dogged the party,

All the evidence is that anti-Semitism is much less prevalent in Labour than in other parties (and, of course, than in society in general).  As far as I can tell, Labour is the only party that has made a concerted effort to fight anti-Semitism.

 

the thought of Dianne Abbott being home secretary

You might have to explain what your specific objection is.

 

and their weird brexit stance where they will negotiate a deal with the EU then campaign against their own deal in the event of a second referendum.

This is not Labour's stance.  

 

Also Corbyn has done nothing but want an election the past 2 years and said once the ben bill was passed labour would vote for an election and when the bill passed he still voted against one.

He has stated clearly and repeatedly that the first priority is to prevent a No Deal Brexit; then we will kick the Tories out. 

 

I've got a feeling labour are going to be decimated in the GE

Where have I heard that before?  We were 25 points behind going into the 2017 election.  We also had sitting MPs, members of the NEC and much of the central party apparatus refusing to campaign for a Labour win.  Despite those handicaps, we destroyed the Tories' majority.

 

31 minutes ago, Leyton388 said:

with leave labour voters voting UKIP or the brexit party just like in the EU elections.

EU elections have never been a good predictor of General Elections.  They are low-turnout affairs, often used as protest votes and run under a different electoral system. I don't believe for a minute that large numbers of Labour voters are going to vote for a Parliamentary candidate either from a party whose leader wants to privatise the NHS or for a party that has fizzled into Fascism since 2016.

 

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

6 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Yep, he's just out of shot, sitting on that fence in the background. 

 

(With apologies to AoT)

OK.

 

I'll rep that one.

[sir roger]

24 minutes ago, Leyton388 said:

There are a few things but most importantly the anti semitic issues that have dogged the party, the thought of Dianne Abbott being home secretary and their weird brexit stance where they will negotiate a deal with the EU then campaign against their own deal in the event of a second referendum.

 

Also Corbyn has done nothing but want an election the past 2 years and said once the ben bill was passed labour would vote for an election and when the bill passed he still voted against one. 

 

I've got a feeling labour are going to be decimated in the GE with leave labour voters voting UKIP or the brexit party just like in the EU elections.

 

 

Don't get the hating of Diane Abbott at all , it appears that getting a figure wrong on live radio while ignoring your diabetes medication through overwork is far more important than being proved right over Iraq , id cards and being a tireless proponent of pro-abortion choice and opponent of the racist ' Windrush ' Tory environment. One thing is for certain , she is worth 10 of Priti Patel.

 

Labour is the only party that has a sizeable split between Leavers and Remainers so has to have a more nuanced stance , but Corbyn is suggesting that he will not favour any side in a Labour Brexit referendum & I would expect MP's and members to be allowed to push their own preference but do not think there will be an official Labour position.

 

Surely you read or hear the news that Johnson's orcs are searching for any way of subverting the Benn bill , so how stupid would the opposition parties be to agree to an election in short order and then find out it would be fought after Johnson had already wangled us out on a no-Deal wheeze.

 

It may not work , but paragraph 2 outlines Labour's effort to avoid your election worry.

 

If you look at the policies of the various parties and feel somebody deserves your vote more than Labour , that is your choice and good luck with it , but the stuff you outlined is pretty weak stuff in my opinion.

 

( I am not getting into the a/s shite as it annoys me that much )

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

43 minutes ago, ZonkoVille77 said:

 

Take a look at Rachel Riley here. 

On that note... 

 

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

15 hours ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

CBI saying Labour’s plan to renationalise would cost 200bn. Labour calling it incoherent scaremongering from a group wanting to look after their shareholders rather than create a fair economy. They didn’t say how it was incoherent.
 

Whichever way you look at it, It going to cost a fucking lot of money. I think it would only result in marginally better outcomes. That’s why I said it shouldn’t be a priority. It’s not that I wouldn’t want some of it back in public hands, it’s that the sheer cost and benefits make it something that’s not as important as many other things. 
 

What I would like to hear, from those who do think spending so much on the likes of Royal Mail is the priority for the next government, is how much benefit we will get from the spend, and why that money isn’t better spent elsewhere. Unless the plan is to spend on everything we need, at the same time, then the word priority suggests it’s more important that this money goes in that rather than, say, hospitals, schools, policing, scientific research, social welfare programs, business support, etc. 

The CBI figures shouldn't be taken as the absolute truth (and they should certainly not be taken as impartial).

https://weownit.org.uk/blog/here’s-why-cbi-wrong-about-labour’s-nationalisation-plans

 

"Public ownership is an investment, not a cost

 

As John McDonnell keeps pointing out, when it comes to water, energy and the Royal Mail, we’d be acquiring profitable assets which would return billions to the public purse every year....

 

But what about the upfront cost of buying back the companies involved? 

 

Well, it’s not up to the CBI. Parliament will decide on compensation levels for buying back our services, based on the public interest. 

 

UK and European courts have repeatedly said that “legitimate objectives of 'public interest', such as pursued in measures of economic reform or measures designed to achieve greater social justice, may call for less than reimbursement of the full market value”...

 

The CBI said today that renationalisation of water, energy, rail and Royal Mail would cost £196 billion. There are two problems with the way they calculated this figure.

 

Firstly, they used the Regulatory Asset Base (RAB)/Regulatory Capital Value (RCV) of the companies involved. But this isn’t the real market value, it’s just a notional figure used by the regulators.

 

Secondly, the 30% markup is based on traditional takeover practice. But bringing assets into public ownership isn’t a takeover. 

 

It’s hard to imagine that parliament would justify giving shareholders 30% extra on top of RAB/RCV. Why would this huge handout to investors be in the public interest?..

 

Public ownership pays for itself

 

Buying back the water companies in England would pay for itself in 8 years. It would cost £15 billion (the actual book value of shareholders’ investments) and we’d save £2.3 billion a year.

 

Buying back our energy networks would pay for itself in 7 years.  It would cost £22 billion (the actual book value of shareholders’ investments) to buy back the National Grid and the regional distribution companies and we’d save £3.2 billion a year. 

 

Buying back our Royal Mail  would pay for itself in 7 years. It would be even simpler - the private owners have managed it so badly that the market value today is only £2.2 billion, less than half of even the book value of the company - and we would save over £300 million a year.

 

When it comes to rail, we can take franchises in house one at a time as they come up for renewal without paying a penny in compensation. We already own the infrastructure through Network Rail. When new trains are needed, we can buy them directly on behalf of the public, and save ourselves the £200 million a year currently going to rolling stock shareholders.

 

We would then collectively own, control and benefit from all the assets of our public water, energy, post and rail systems...

 

Bringing these assets into public ownership would not only pay for itself, it would have huge benefits for the environment, society and economy. Benefits like transparency, democratic accountability, lower bills and fares, more investment, more care and better services. 

 

Instead of insisting private companies have to do everything, we can embrace a mixed economy and 21st century public ownership. Public services should work for all of us, not just for shareholders. The sooner we make it happen, the better."

 

[Leyton388]

22 minutes ago, sir roger said:

Don't get the hating of Diane Abbott at all , it appears that getting a figure wrong on live radio while ignoring your diabetes medication through overwork is far more important than being proved right over Iraq , id cards and being a tireless proponent of pro-abortion choice and opponent of the racist ' Windrush ' Tory environment. One thing is for certain , she is worth 10 of Priti Patel.

 

Labour is the only party that has a sizeable split between Leavers and Remainers so has to have a more nuanced stance , but Corbyn is suggesting that he will not favour any side in a Labour Brexit referendum & I would expect MP's and members to be allowed to push their own preference but do not think there will be an official Labour position.

 

Surely you read or hear the news that Johnson's orcs are searching for any way of subverting the Benn bill , so how stupid would the opposition parties be to agree to an election in short order and then find out it would be fought after Johnson had already wangled us out on a no-Deal wheeze.

 

It may not work , but paragraph 2 outlines Labour's effort to avoid your election worry.

 

If you look at the policies of the various parties and feel somebody deserves your vote more than Labour , that is your choice and good luck with it , but the stuff you outlined is pretty weak stuff in my opinion.

 

( I am not getting into the a/s shite as it annoys me that much )

In just sick to my back teeth of all the political establishment and the Ben bill appears to be quite weak anyway as the Tory cunts are ironically going to use EU law to get around it as the european Communities act 1972 means European law supersedes UK law which is why I think Boris the nonce has continually said we are leaving on the 31st but he will obey the law. 

 

The best thing about brexit is that it has claimed 2 tory PM's in 3 years. Parliament the past 3 years have been an total embarrassment to the country.

 

 I was really hoping change UK would get some traction but they appear to have been short lived. 

[cloggypop]

Short Changed 

[polymerpunkah]

Lib Dem Limbo

[Megadrive Man]

51 minutes ago, Leyton388 said:

In just sick to my back teeth of all the political establishment and the Ben bill appears to be quite weak anyway as the Tory cunts are ironically going to use EU law to get around it as the european Communities act 1972 means European law supersedes UK law which is why I think Boris the nonce has continually said we are leaving on the 31st but he will obey the law. 

 

The best thing about brexit is that it has claimed 2 tory PM's in 3 years. Parliament the past 3 years have been an total embarrassment to the country.

 

 I was really hoping change UK would get some traction but they appear to have been short lived. 

AOT has answered most of my questions, but just to add;

 

Dianne Abbot has been singled out and treated incredibly unfairly because she got some figures wrong. Phillip Hammond got some figures wrong around HS2, but you've probably never heard about it because it wasn't reported in the same way.

 

Labour's brexit stance is designed to give give both the Leave supporting and remain supporting voters another decision to make. Not to completely ignore or alienate one side of the argument.

 

The reason Labour rejected a General Election under the fixed term parliaments act is because it potentially allowed Boris Johnson to dissolve parliament and arrange an election on the 1st of November meaning it was basically a way to trap opposition parties in to crashing out with no deal and making Boris look like some kind of Genius Right wing hero.

 

Change Uk were doomed from the start. They were only ever going to be the gateway drug to the Lib Dems.

 

I don't agree with Everything Labour stands for right now, but I agree considerably more than I do with the original tories, the yellow Tories and Farage Tory wannabes.

[Megadrive Man]

I spoke to one of my friends parents who are the stereotypical lifelong Tory voters and even they said that they think that a Corbyn lead Government is a safer option than a no deal Boris government.

 

Hopefully this is the way the majority of the county is starting to think.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

7 hours ago, Leyton388 said:

In just sick to my back teeth of all the political establishment and the Ben bill appears to be quite weak anyway as the Tory cunts are ironically going to use EU law to get around it as the european Communities act 1972 means European law supersedes UK law which is why I think Boris the nonce has continually said we are leaving on the 31st but he will obey the law. 

 

There is nothing in EU law to override the Benn Act (not "bill" - it's been enacted as UK law) and kick us out on the 31st.

[SasaS]

12 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

The CBI figures shouldn't be taken as the absolute truth (and they should certainly not be taken as impartial).

https://weownit.org.uk/blog/here’s-why-cbi-wrong-about-labour’s-nationalisation-plans

 

"Public ownership is an investment, not a cost

 

As John McDonnell keeps pointing out, when it comes to water, energy and the Royal Mail, we’d be acquiring profitable assets which would return billions to the public purse every year....

 

But what about the upfront cost of buying back the companies involved? 

 

Well, it’s not up to the CBI. Parliament will decide on compensation levels for buying back our services, based on the public interest. 

 

UK and European courts have repeatedly said that “legitimate objectives of 'public interest', such as pursued in measures of economic reform or measures designed to achieve greater social justice, may call for less than reimbursement of the full market value”...

 

The CBI said today that renationalisation of water, energy, rail and Royal Mail would cost £196 billion. There are two problems with the way they calculated this figure.

 

Firstly, they used the Regulatory Asset Base (RAB)/Regulatory Capital Value (RCV) of the companies involved. But this isn’t the real market value, it’s just a notional figure used by the regulators.

 

Secondly, the 30% markup is based on traditional takeover practice. But bringing assets into public ownership isn’t a takeover. 

 

It’s hard to imagine that parliament would justify giving shareholders 30% extra on top of RAB/RCV. Why would this huge handout to investors be in the public interest?..

 

Public ownership pays for itself

 

Buying back the water companies in England would pay for itself in 8 years. It would cost £15 billion (the actual book value of shareholders’ investments) and we’d save £2.3 billion a year.

 

Buying back our energy networks would pay for itself in 7 years.  It would cost £22 billion (the actual book value of shareholders’ investments) to buy back the National Grid and the regional distribution companies and we’d save £3.2 billion a year. 

 

Buying back our Royal Mail  would pay for itself in 7 years. It would be even simpler - the private owners have managed it so badly that the market value today is only £2.2 billion, less than half of even the book value of the company - and we would save over £300 million a year.

 

When it comes to rail, we can take franchises in house one at a time as they come up for renewal without paying a penny in compensation. We already own the infrastructure through Network Rail. When new trains are needed, we can buy them directly on behalf of the public, and save ourselves the £200 million a year currently going to rolling stock shareholders.

 

We would then collectively own, control and benefit from all the assets of our public water, energy, post and rail systems...

 

Bringing these assets into public ownership would not only pay for itself, it would have huge benefits for the environment, society and economy. Benefits like transparency, democratic accountability, lower bills and fares, more investment, more care and better services.  

 

Instead of insisting private companies have to do everything, we can embrace a mixed economy and 21st century public ownership. Public services should work for all of us, not just for shareholders. The sooner we make it happen, the better."

 

 

I don't fully understand the (economic) logic of some of this argument, for example if Royal Mail is now run so badly as a privately held assed that it halved in its value, why would you think the reason for that is just poor management, which the government would do much better? Are private owners stupid, but the government would be smart and savvy?

If the companies listed are so profitable, why would the shareholders sell them at the price below expected market value (30% premium on average value over a certain period)? Why is the (future) government so confident it would run these companies more efficiently than they are run now? Efficiency usually means constant cost cutting and innovation, governments  typically have other priorities.

All future investments needed would have to come either from companies, which would eat into their profits and / or increase their debt or from the owner (the government). There will also be constant political pressure on the government to keep the price for end users low.

Where do the listed saved amount come from, are they current subsidies or profit these companies pay to shareholders?

"Bringing these assets into public ownership would not only pay for itself, it would have huge benefits for the environment, society and economy. Benefits like transparency, democratic accountability, lower bills and fares, more investment, more care and better services. "

These seem to be somewhat conflicting  concepts and / or good wishes or just empty rhetoric. Environment benefits are not linked to ownership control but to regulation, lower bills and fares but with more investment and better services sounds a bit harrrypottery. State-owned companies are usually hotbeds of corruption and political influence on business decisions, not transparency and democratic accountability.

If you have natural monopolies, it makes sense that they are held by the government, because a natural monopoly like the grid should not be making profit for private investors but this is just a link in the supply chain.

And what is 21st century public ownership?

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

23 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

I don't fully understand the (economic) logic of some of this argument, for example if Royal Mail is now run so badly as a privately held assed that it halved in its value, why would you think the reason for that is just poor management, which the government would do much better? Are private owners stupid, but the government would be smart and savvy?

I don't think anyone is arguing that the problem is "just" poor management.  The point was raised to counter the Thatcherite doctrine of "public sector inefficient/private sector efficient". 

 

 

If the companies listed are so profitable, why would the shareholders sell them at the price below expected market value (30% premium on average value over a certain period)? Why is the (future) government so confident it would run these companies more efficiently than they are run now? Efficiency usually means constant cost cutting and innovation, governments  typically have other priorities.

As the article says, Parliament would set the terms by which shareholders would be reimbursed. They are not "selling" their shares, as if the company were still privately owned. 

 

 

All future investments needed would have to come either from companies, which would eat into their profits and / or increase their debt or from the owner (the government). There will also be constant political pressure on the government to keep the price for end users low.

Future investment would come from Government, either from funds generated by the "company" itself (which are currently frittered away on share dividends) or from savings achieved (for example, by reducing the administrative costs caused by the fragmentation of rail) or by the National Investment Bank (which Labour are looking to establish) or from general taxation  (recognising the societal benefits of such investment).

 

Where do the listed saved amount come from, are they current subsidies or profit these companies pay to shareholders?

 

 

"Bringing these assets into public ownership would not only pay for itself, it would have huge benefits for the environment, society and economy. Benefits like transparency, democratic accountability, lower bills and fares, more investment, more care and better services. "

These seem to be somewhat conflicting  concepts and / or good wishes or just empty rhetoric. Environment benefits are not linked to ownership control but to regulation, lower bills and fares but with more investment and better services sounds a bit harrrypottery. State-owned companies are usually hotbeds of corruption and political influence on business decisions, not transparency and democratic accountability.

That's more political dogma rather than economic reality.

If you have natural monopolies, it makes sense that they are held by the government, because a natural monopoly like the grid should not be making profit for private investors but this is just a link in the supply chain.

And what is 21st century public ownership?

A catchphrase.

 

[SasaS]

40 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that the problem is "just" poor management.  The point was raised to counter the Thatcherite doctrine of "public sector inefficient/private sector efficient". 

 

In case of the postal service the article may be misleading the public then, if I am not mistaken postal services are losing money on traditional services (letters, etc) and make money on commercial delivery services and by using its network of offices to offer other profit making services (selling other stuff). The benefit of public ownership is that loss-making areas (remote, sparsely populated) still get serviced (which privately owned enterprise would try to avoid or expect to government to subsidize), but this would hardly be a money making operation (paying for itself over a relatively short period of time). 

 

 As the article says, Parliament would set the terms by which shareholders would be reimbursed. They are not "selling" their shares, as if the company were still privately owned. 

 

Can the shareholders not sue in that case? I would. I mean, if you can nationalise them at the price your set yourself, yes, they will all be profitable, at least those that are already breaking even and at least for a while, because the parliament will set the price that will ensure that.

 

Future investment would come from Government, either from funds generated by the "company" itself (which are currently frittered away on share dividends) or from savings achieved (for example, by reducing the administrative costs caused by the fragmentation of rail) or by the National Investment Bank (which Labour are looking to establish) or from general taxation  (recognising the societal benefits of such investment).

 

But this should be factored in when listing savings and/or benefits, periods in which the government plans to recoup the initial investment. You cannot say we will spend 3 billion and it will pay for itself over 8 years in profit and leave out the fact you intend to increase the capital of the company by additional 3 billion through investments (regardless of the source of the funding).

 

That's more political dogma rather than economic reality.

Efficient businesses mostly behave the same regardless of who owns them, provided they are allowed to operate as efficient businesses. This would exclude excessive political influence, but once the owner (state) begins pressuring investment decisions, pricing and wages decisions, employment decisions etc. economic efficiency goes out the window.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Efficient businesses operate by only serving the customers it is profitable to serve. In the case of most businesses, that's fine: there is no overriding societal need for a pizza place to offer free deliveries more than 3 miles away, so we're happy for them to refuse to serve those customers. 

 

However, some things which fulfil universal basic needs and societal demand - health, education, security, water, sewage, public transport, gas/electricity, etc. - cannot be fully met by market forces. As a society, we choose not to just let people suffer if they are outside the reach of private provision of these things.  The compromise we have had for the last few decades is, basically, to have the profitable stuff run privately and the unprofitable funded by the public sector.  It's hard to argue that there's anything efficient or equitable about that.

[Rico1304]

Latest polling shows Labour now behind the Conservatives in Wales.  

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Shareholders would not be able to sue Parliament, because Parliament would be acting in accordance with the law (what, with them being the ones who make the law an' all).

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 minute ago, Rico1304 said:

Latest polling shows Labour now behind the Conservatives in Wales.  

Wake me up when it's 25 points.