Sorry for delayed reply. Meant to get back to you on this. Yes, I agree, if we lose seats there has to be careful reflection. For me, if we don’t make active gains (which is most likely) the first thing is that Corbyn has to go. I’ve been saying that he’s a net liability for over a year now and hoped he would be replaced then but due to his stubbornness, mixed with lack of obvious successor material, we went on with him and his low hanging fruit baggage which = his name deterring many voters in working class and strong Jewish constituencies. In the campaign, he doesn’t look anything like the same man who I thought convincingly moved the party from centre to left ground when he became leader and re-enthused many who felt there needed to be radical change after the many years of cuts.
Then the policies. I know you and I would disagree but I think there does need to be a radical change and realignment of wealth and restructuring and strengthening of public services. You said recently that politicians need to be honest about how much that would cost and say that 1p on income tax for everyone would make much difference in affording better service. We need to raise more and on that we appear to agree. Which led me to repeatedly ask you what your suggestion would be to raise the kind of money we need, and this goes to the crux of our problem. Firstly, an acceptance of how much we need to raise in order to make a positive impact on public services and health care and then secondly how do we go propose to raise such an amount from the options available? The current Labour option is very ambitious and I would agree over reaches in its final amount. That leads to the question of what proposals do they draw back on? Here we might have some further agreement: non universal free broadband, dental treatment and education so that only the lower classes benefit the most. I wonder to what extent that Labour are appealing to the vote of these ‘comfortable’ middle classes by making them even more comfortable. And whether without offering them these benefits, they will be more likely to vote elsewhere? But of course that is offset by a more expensive overall spend, so we lose votes to those ‘irresponsible spenders’ accusation.
I would think it reasonable also not to renationalise all suggested services, to prioritise rail and energy possibly. And I would also take on board the IFS observation that collected business taxes, corporation plus others could take us to the top of the overall business tax payers in Europe, which is where we don’t want to be. So there needs to be some amendments there so that we sit comparatively with local competitors, who are able to spend more on services because they raise more through taxes, but not above and beyond them.
But I don’t think that the policies are far off, although I know many on here disagree, if we are to try and make a significant impact on the lives of working people. I think an important obfuscation is Brexit, without which I think the heartlands would remain strongly Labour, and we would not have bled so many votes to extremist remainers going over to Swinson’s stance. By contrast, Farage’s meek deferment to the Tory campaign, despite the Johnson deal being very soft by his and his supporter’s wishes is a huge factor and will I thing just about secure the majority. Labour need a serious review, but not throw the baby out…




Reply With Quote

