O/T - general election 2019

[Exiletyke]

Tuition fees are a form of progressive taxation. People who choose to go to university and do well out of it are likely to pay back their loans in full. Those who fail to benefit and end up in low paid jobs may end up paying back virtually nothing before it is written off.

We do send too many kids to university. In part it’s a sort of intellectual snobbery that pervades in this country where an academic education is valued over a technical or vocational one. We need engineers, plumbers and bricklayers just as much as we do doctors and even lawyers.

Why not have university education for plumbers, bricklayers [engineering degrees are already catered for at uni]
That would obviate any snobbery

[ragingpup]

Dear Raging,

Silly is quite right that we can’t be expected to comment upon the contents of a manifesto that is yet to be published. I can give you a couple of examples of policy announcements at Labour Party conferences that I consider to be extreme, however:

The part nationalisation of every decent sized public company in the UK – you will recall the announcement that every public company with 250 or more employees is to be taken into 10% state ownership.

The banning of private schools – although I suspect that this one won’t make it into the manifesto after Labour focus groups point out that not every private school is Eton and that a lot of the 8% of parents who choose to have their children privately educated scrimp and save to do it (whilst paying taxes that fund state education).

And why are you getting so upset about extreme? Corbyn himself says that he will pursue a ‘radical’ programme. The last time I looked, radical and extreme were synonyms of each other.

On the subject of Corbyn, did you grab his gig at Battersea today? Do you buy into the class warfare stuff about the elite? It’s all a bit student union debating society don’t you think?

That being said, if the Tories continue to bang on about Brexit and only Brexit, they risk having another ‘strong and stable' moment.

I think these are much more appropriate examples of where Labour are thinking quite radically. But extreme? I can see the crossover but extreme has much more negative connotations which can colour perception of a concept or idea. Therefore we have to be careful of it's use. Extreme left, to me at any rate = 60-90% higher tax rates, 40% corporation tax rates, forced state ownership of private innovation, all workers paid the same regardless of work done, state uniform, state TV and media. And on the right, removal of all state intervention in market economy, removal of state health and social services, removal of taxation, nationalism, deportation of non nationals etc etc etc. I wouldn't place Corbyn or Farage in any of these extremes if were being sensible.

Are your suggestions here those of an extreme left? Lets see:

1. 10% state ownership of large private companies. I would share your concern if this went through as "state ownership" and Labour need to be careful here. I am completely behind giving workers financial stakes in their companies and this is practiced across the world and in the UK by non extremist companies (Richer Sounds being quite recent). These companies appear to see the benefit of worker stakes on productivity and this is what Labour need to tap into. But I would agree they need to remove any sense of part profits going to the state - it should be completely about any redirected money going to the workers, with the employers sold on the benefits to productivity. Let's see what they come out with https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48297641

2. Public schools. Again Labour needs to be careful here. On the one hand I take your point that some parents scrimp and save but at the same time you have an enormous social imbalance of wealth and top jobs in key status professions being completely dominated by kids from public schools. Some scrimp and save to get kids iinto public schools but the ones at the top fee schools tend to dominate the top jobs, dominate power and privilege and is a huge social injustice as this is based hugely on the chance of which parents a child is born into. I work in one of the poorest educational areas in the country in East London where children are at the receiving end of some of the worst parental choices and in many cases rely on us to lift them into the very basic bottom rung of the ladder. Just through the chance of the parents and circumstances they were born into. As it stands its a huge social injustice and surely, if we were going to reset, and start to build social rules and norms again, we wouldn't normalise advantage to certain kids above others as brutally as this. Education should be the great leveller. Kids didn't have a say on the circumstances they were born into. So whilst I agree that Labour shouldn't crash and burn the public school system, public schools should be an entirely private venture, no state support and much more should be done to improve the overall quality of state schools at every level, as the most important investment me make in future society that we can make. Let's see what they come up with in the manifesto.

I don't buy into "class warfare about the elite". I look at the social justice merits of the policies and go by what policies sound to be the fairest on balance in creating a society that I want my 7 year old girl to grow up in. I took her to Stratford to see a show at the weekend, and even she shames must of us on here and all around us for actually asking "why are there people sleeping in the street and we're walking past them? How can this happen?" I think I would always support the party that is most likely to stop this explosion of poverty, much of it in-work. You can see it as class warfare if you want - I just see it as us all being asked to pay a little more for a better society in which to raise our families. Unfortunately much people in positions of power oppose this with all the power, connections and wealth to keep things moving in the way they have been moving in my lifetime, and if they oppose what I would like to see in the world, then I will oppose and argue against them. Does that make it class warfare? I think it's just decency. But have it how you wish.

[ragingpup]

Some work can't be offshored of course - catering, hospitality or warehouse work for example, but that type of job tends to be low skilled and low paid. On that point, some people who say that the Minimum Wage had not effect on the UK economy are the same who complain about the growth of ZHCs and the gig economy. Coincidence? Maybe...

What evidence do you have that the minimum wage had any significant negative effect on the economy? I've looked into this and, despite all the "Kerrists" of the day predicting job losses and price hikes, all I've found is that it made minimal if any difference. Happy to look at any evidence to the contrary?

[Silly-miller]

What evidence do you have that the minimum wage had any significant negative effect on the economy? I've looked into this and, despite all the "Kerrists" of the day predicting job losses and price hikes, all I've found is that it made minimal if any difference. Happy to look at any evidence to the contrary?

Unfortunately there’s no online proof I can show you Pup or I would be happy to show you but why not ask your wife or family members if they noticed any food prices going up since last year. I can name a lot that went up this year.

Tin of beans quantity went down 10 grams
Breads gone up
Diet Coke gone up 25p
Veg have gone up as well

[ragingpup]

Oh Silly. What difference does the increase on general foodstuffs have on the historic introduction of the minimum wage by Labour in 1998?? Loads of economists were very Kerr like as the dark commie Lord Blair introduced this (and fair play to him, he did some good and this is often mis-remembered by many) brought this in, predicting unemployment, price hikes and general Venezuelan death states. But the actual impact from all research I can find: no significant impact on employment or prices. That's what I was talking about. (although you are quite welcome to say that in your opinion it did have the impact of raising your bread and beans prices 21 years later if you like - I will find it hard to disprove!)

[Silly-miller]

Oh Silly. What difference does the increase on general foodstuffs have on the historic introduction of the minimum wage by Labour in 1998?? Loads of economists were very Kerr like as the dark commie Lord Blair introduced this (and fair play to him, he did some good and this is often mis-remembered by many) brought this in, predicting unemployment, price hikes and general Venezuelan death states. But the actual impact from all research I can find: no significant impact on employment or prices. That's what I was talking about. (although you are quite welcome to say that in your opinion it did have the impact of raising your bread and beans prices 21 years later if you like - I will find it hard to disprove!)

I only mean that when wage goes up companies compensate by sticking prices up you may not look at prices or you may leave it to your wife I don’t know but prices are not the same as they were last year before wage increased. To make a difference on people’s wages you need to stop company from sticking prices up it’s really basic.

[Exiletyke]

Unfortunately there’s no online proof I can show you Pup or I would be happy to show you but why not ask your wife or family members if they noticed any food prices going up since last year. I can name a lot that went up this year.

Tin of beans quantity went down 10 grams
Breads gone up
Diet Coke gone up 25p
Veg have gone up as well

Spoke to my wife ,who I can assure you is no fool when it comes to shopping & she tells me that bread is, depending where you buy it from no more expensive than last year but regardless of that are you saying that the minimum wage is responsible for these phantom price increases Sugar tax will have a bearing & you'll be claiming next that fag prices have risen
It couldn't have anything to do with the big food retailers paying higher dividends to their shareholders,could it ?

[ragingpup]

I only mean that when wage goes up companies compensate by sticking prices up you may not look at prices or you may leave it to your wife I don’t know but prices are not the same as they were last year before wage increased. To make a difference on people’s wages you need to stop company from sticking prices up it’s really basic.

Yes, but I would argue that it's more sophisticated than that. Firstly there is productivity: that workers receiving what they consider to be fair money for their labour, they are more likely to be productive (and the UK has woeful productivity rates which I would suggest may be linked to workers doing the bare minimum for their **** pay, which even Kerr admits costs us through state subsidisation - tax payers are literally subsidising employers paying **** wages. How about that?!)

And then, there is the capitalist (justified) offset that people with more money in their pocket spend more money on the products that their employers are selling.

Maybe this is why, as the research I have presented suggests, that despite all of the doom mongering that was predicted by Kerr's dad (or elder brother, or maybe even Kerr on the first ever Millers message board) in 1998, the introduction of the minimum wage had (to use a technical economics term) "**** all" negative economic impact.

If you feel that this event in 1998 in some way impacted on the price of this year's loaf, then I can't help ya Silly

[WanChaiMiller]

I only mean that when wage goes up companies compensate by sticking prices up you may not look at prices or you may leave it to your wife I don’t know but prices are not the same as they were last year before wage increased. To make a difference on people’s wages you need to stop company from sticking prices up it’s really basic.

Which really proves the only way to get wage rises is through increased productivity (steady on Animal and Exile this has nothing to do with lazy workers).

Productivity in the UK flat lined since the credit crunch of 2007. Its why wages have stagnated. Dont think you can legistate to real wage increases.

[KerrAvon]

I think these are much more appropriate examples of where Labour are thinking quite radically. But extreme? I can see the crossover but extreme has much more negative connotations which can colour perception of a concept or idea. Therefore we have to be careful of it's use. Extreme left, to me at any rate = 60-90% higher tax rates, 40% corporation tax rates, forced state ownership of private innovation, all workers paid the same regardless of work done, state uniform, state TV and media. And on the right, removal of all state intervention in market economy, removal of state health and social services, removal of taxation, nationalism, deportation of non nationals etc etc etc. I wouldn't place Corbyn or Farage in any of these extremes if were being sensible.

Are your suggestions here those of an extreme left? Lets see:

1. 10% state ownership of large private companies. I would share your concern if this went through as "state ownership" and Labour need to be careful here. I am completely behind giving workers financial stakes in their companies and this is practiced across the world and in the UK by non extremist companies (Richer Sounds being quite recent). These companies appear to see the benefit of worker stakes on productivity and this is what Labour need to tap into. But I would agree they need to remove any sense of part profits going to the state - it should be completely about any redirected money going to the workers, with the employers sold on the benefits to productivity. Let's see what they come out with https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48297641

2. Public schools. Again Labour needs to be careful here. On the one hand I take your point that some parents scrimp and save but at the same time you have an enormous social imbalance of wealth and top jobs in key status professions being completely dominated by kids from public schools. Some scrimp and save to get kids iinto public schools but the ones at the top fee schools tend to dominate the top jobs, dominate power and privilege and is a huge social injustice as this is based hugely on the chance of which parents a child is born into. I work in one of the poorest educational areas in the country in East London where children are at the receiving end of some of the worst parental choices and in many cases rely on us to lift them into the very basic bottom rung of the ladder. Just through the chance of the parents and circumstances they were born into. As it stands its a huge social injustice and surely, if we were going to reset, and start to build social rules and norms again, we wouldn't normalise advantage to certain kids above others as brutally as this. Education should be the great leveller. Kids didn't have a say on the circumstances they were born into. So whilst I agree that Labour shouldn't crash and burn the public school system, public schools should be an entirely private venture, no state support and much more should be done to improve the overall quality of state schools at every level, as the most important investment me make in future society that we can make. Let's see what they come up with in the manifesto.

I don't buy into "class warfare about the elite". I look at the social justice merits of the policies and go by what policies sound to be the fairest on balance in creating a society that I want my 7 year old girl to grow up in. I took her to Stratford to see a show at the weekend, and even she shames must of us on here and all around us for actually asking "why are there people sleeping in the street and we're walking past them? How can this happen?" I think I would always support the party that is most likely to stop this explosion of poverty, much of it in-work. You can see it as class warfare if you want - I just see it as us all being asked to pay a little more for a better society in which to raise our families. Unfortunately much people in positions of power oppose this with all the power, connections and wealth to keep things moving in the way they have been moving in my lifetime, and if they oppose what I would like to see in the world, then I will oppose and argue against them. Does that make it class warfare? I think it's just decency. But have it how you wish.

I agree with the notion that we should wait for the manifestoes, Raging. It’s one of the points that I was making. All I would ask is that you think about what you are being sold and not just jump at the dog whistle promises on offer.

It’s hard to be nice about your decency comment. It is a cheap shot. Either that or you are so narcissistic as to seriously believe in your moral superiority?

I totally agree that worker ownership should be encouraged. The issue that I have is that what Labour were talking about at the 2018 Labour conference was not worker ownership in any sense of that expression. It was a tax grab as one eagle eyed Guardian correspondent noted at the time:

https://www.theguardian.com/business...hare-ownership

As he observes, what about encouraging real ownership by creating tax breaks for share ownership schemes? The answers, of course, are that the mouth frothy wing of the party (quite a large wing these days) would have a funny turn at the mention of a tax break and that it would not create the income stream that a Labour treasury would desperately need.

On education, I will certainly wait to see what Labour actually say in their manifesto. I strongly suspect that the conference announcement will not have played well in focus groups, in which case I wouldn’t be surprised to see it get kicked into the long grass with the promise of a review or similar. You say that there should be no more state support for the private sector; what support do you think it gets?

On social justice generally, you make a lot of assumptions about me (and, I suspect, anyone else who doesn’t buy into Corbyn). I don’t see seeking greater equality in this country as waging class warfare – I was specifically talking about the ‘elite’ rhetoric of Corbyn today.

I meet people from across society within my work and feel terribly sorry for the way that the world is treating some of them. What I don’t buy into are the glib easy answers that Labour is selling. Today, for example, Corbyn said that “On our first day in office, we will immediately buy all the properties necessary to house the rough sleepers". Seriously? Has anyone thought that one through? That is simply going to reduce the available housing stock and push rental and purchase prices up. More importantly are the people he is going to buy houses for going pay rent? If not, isn’t that a slap in the face to people who do? And if they are to pay rent, what is going to happen if they don’t? Many won’t, because Corbs will discover that many people are homeless because of alcohol or drug addiction (although there can be a bit of chicken and egg about that).