Who will be the new Labour leader?

[robinessex]

Er, things also went wrong when the Labour government went conservative. Is there a clue there ?

[98elise]

TomTheTyke said:

turbobloke said:

A detailed reply.

.... Same goes for energy but Miliband, for all his failings, had at least pledged to cap prices.

Edited by TomTheTyke on Thursday 23 July 12:38

Apologies for singling out this point, but do you not think this was just hot air? You can already cap your prices with a fixed deal, but it will cost you more.

Did you imagine he was going cap bills at lower prices? What do you think would happen when the wholesale cost exceeded the capped retail price? Would they be made to supply you at a loss? How long would that last?

[turbobloke]

98elise said:

TomTheTyke said:

turbobloke said:

A detailed reply.

.... Same goes for energy but Miliband, for all his failings, had at least pledged to cap prices.

Apologies for singling out this point, but do you not think this was just hot air? You can already cap your prices with a fixed deal, but it will cost you more.

Did you imagine he was going cap bills at lower prices? What do you think would happen when the wholesale cost exceeded the capped retail price? Would they be made to supply you at a loss? How long would that last?

Exactly it was an inept idea. Scrapping the pointless Climate Change Act would have worked extremely well.

Miliband's proposal hit share prices and led energy companies to resist lowering prices. Eventually, they did:

Labour price freeze in chaos as energy bills fall and Party forced to issue clarification that plan will become a cap if costs drop

[Mrr T]

TomTheTyke said:

However, I choose to disagree with what I feel are rational reasons. The current economic crisis was not caused by Labour's overspending on Socialist ideas but by a a failure of government, mainly in the USA, to regulate investment banks. I believe that this is being used as an excuse by the Tory party to reduce the role of the state (no surprise as this is their key principle) and I feel that this is damaging the lives of British people.

Having claimed to not be a moron you then post this?

While the lack of regulation of US investment banks contributed to the banking crisis there where many other factors of which the biggest was a property boom across much of the first world.

While this caused a slow down in economic activity and a fall in tax revenues, the fact is that despite Brown abolishing boom and bust its still with us.

Even Kaynes believed a Government should reduce and repay borrowings during time of boom so as to be able to borrow to increase activity when the bust comes.

NU Labour doubled UK Public Spending during the boom years. This was clearly not sustainable when the bust came.

Anybody (obviously not you) could see increasing expenditure so much they where having to increase borrowing during a boom was an idea which was going to come crashing down when the economy slowed.

[Mark Benson]

TomTheTyke said:

turbobloke said:

A detailed reply.

I agree not regulating the banks properly here as well before 2008 was a serious failing, but that was the failing rather than public spending.

Fist off, it's nice to see a considered and reasoned argument from the left on here, too often the noise drowns out the signal (though that could be said of both sides of the argument, there are more on the right so it's easier to work out the empty vessels). But then you're a fellow Yorkshireman, we argue for sport (as my southern wife continually reminds me)

And while I don't disagree that the causes of the financial crisis mainly found in the financial institutions and the lax regulation thereof, lets not forget two points;
1) Labour bailed out the banks - 'Too big to fail' we were told; I'd have let them fail. That is true capitalism. They took on the liabilities, they alone should bear the consequences of their actions.
2) Cause is only half the equation, effect being the other. We were far more poorly placed to weather the storm because we ran (and continue to run) a high defecit. All the time the economy was doing well, Gordon Brown was saddling it with more and more debt which left us in dire straits once the bust he'd claimed to have eliminated finally happened.

[turbobloke]

Mark Benson said:

TomTheTyke said:

turbobloke said:

A detailed reply.

I agree not regulating the banks properly here as well before 2008 was a serious failing, but that was the failing rather than public spending.

Fist off, it's nice to see a considered and reasoned argument from the left on here, too often the noise drowns out the signal (though that could be said of both sides of the argument, there are more on the right so it's easier to work out the sound argument). But then you're a fellow Yorkshireman, we argue for sport (as my southern wife continually reminds me)

And while I don't disagree that the causes of the financial crisis mainly found in the financial institutions and the lax regulation thereof, lets not forget two points;
1) Labour bailed out the banks - 'Too big to fail' we were told; I'd have let them fail. That is true capitalism. They took on the liabilities, they alone should bear the consequences of their actions.
2) Cause is only half the equation, effect being the other. We were far more poorly placed to weather the storm because we ran (and continue to run) a high defecit. All the time the economy was doing well, Gordon Brown was saddling it with more and more debt which left us in dire straits once the bust he'd claimed to have eliminated finally happened.

Agreed, as per my post El Brownturn didn't cause the crunch and crash single-handed, he just made it worse for us - but we were OK, unbeknown to us at the time, as Gordon was about to Save The World

Maybe at some point Corbyn will save the UK from Labour

[turbobloke]

robinessex said:

Er, things also went wrong when the Labour government went conservative. Is there a clue there ?

Economically? That's what was being discussed...from 1997 to 2001 things didn't go too badly wrong with Gordo keeping reasonably close to the inherited Tory trajectory, apart from just under 70 stealth taxes by the end of 2002 with the resulting readies ready to be spunked up the wall.

[deadslow]

Mrr T said:

TomTheTyke said:

However, I choose to disagree with what I feel are rational reasons. The current economic crisis was not caused by Labour's overspending on Socialist ideas but by a a failure of government, mainly in the USA, to regulate investment banks. I believe that this is being used as an excuse by the Tory party to reduce the role of the state (no surprise as this is their key principle) and I feel that this is damaging the lives of British people.

Having claimed to not be a moron you then post this?

While the lack of regulation of US investment banks contributed to the banking crisis there where many other factors of which the biggest was a property boom across much of the first world.

While this caused a slow down in economic activity and a fall in tax revenues, the fact is that despite Brown abolishing boom and bust its still with us.

Even Kaynes believed a Government should reduce and repay borrowings during time of boom so as to be able to borrow to increase activity when the bust comes.

NU Labour doubled UK Public Spending during the boom years. This was clearly not sustainable when the bust came.

Anybody (obviously not you) could see increasing expenditure so much they where having to increase borrowing during a boom was an idea which was going to come crashing down when the economy slowed.

Labour were spending like madmen, but it was a bunck of sickeningly greedy tories who crashed the economy. They now live in Monaco.

[foliedouce]

TomTheTyke said:

Can we please stop this idea of making out anybody on the left of politics to be a complete moron? I joined this website because I like cars, that is something we all have in common but it does seem as though the majority of people on here are certainly right-leaning in terms of politics. That is no bad thing in itself, everybody has the right to an opinion but I really don't think it's fair that the alternative standpoint is constantly talked about in this way. Disagree if you wish but can we refrain from childish insults?

I am a Labour voter and a socialist; I wish the Labour Party and the country took a more leftist stand. I am in favour of the nationalisation of transport and utilities, of a completely free NHS (at the point of use), a removal of university tuition fees and an increase in council housing. I am in favour of increasing taxation of the highest earners in order to pay for this, although it's worth adding that actually collecting the taxes currently evaded would help a great deal (£50 billion/year or so). We should also borrow for capital investment where appropriate.

I am not, however, a mindless lemming who somehow follows anything spouted by the Labour party without consideration. I continue to vote for them because they are the closest thing to what I want that might actually win. In other elections (EU) I have used a protest vote, for example to the Socialist Labour Party and in this general election I seriously considered voting for the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition but that would have been a 'waste' under FPTP in Barnsley East.

Moreover, I am not ignorant of what free market capitalism and the reduction of the deficit is meant to achieve. I studied parts of economic history at university, I genuinely understand why to some people the 'invisible hand' or Friedman's ideas, the freedom to build your own life free of government intervention in the market seems appealing and why it seems like common sense to balance a country's budget like that of a household.

However, I choose to disagree with what I feel are rational reasons. The current economic crisis was not caused by Labour's overspending on Socialist ideas but by a a failure of government, mainly in the USA, to regulate investment banks. I believe that this is being used as an excuse by the Tory party to reduce the role of the state (no surprise as this is their key principle) and I feel that this is damaging the lives of British people.

Of course I do not believe that people should be allowed unlimited benefits if they can work, that would be foolish. What I want is a socialist economy with as near to full employment as possible; a higher minimum wage that will actually reduce the benefits burden and comprehensive support around the crucial things a person needs to live: heat, light, education, transport, health. It is possible to achieve all this and more under free market capitalism but it is not possible for ALL to do it and therein lies the problem.

I am sorry for the essay length and for the bit that reads like me talking up my own education/ saying 'ooh aren't I clever.' I just want to point out that those of us on the Left are not 'loonies,' we just happen, following careful consideration of the facts and the morals to disagree with the idea that socialism's track record is terrible while that of capitalism is perfect.

Edited by TomTheTyke on Thursday 23 July 11:48

Good on you for being up front, honest and considered especially on a fairly right wing forum.

The challenge facing Labour is that they seem to have already forgotten that they lost the last election due to left wing policies. Corbyn is even further left than Milliband, so if they want to win in 5 years time, he's probably not their best chance. Irrespective of some of the serious right wing stuff that's banded about on here, most of the UK is fairly centrist in their ideology.

As has already been pointed out to you, we can all agree that Labour didn't cause the global meltdown, they did however spend more than they had in income at the peak of the economic cycle. If they'd run a surplus, then we'd have had more money to deal with the downturn. The blame can absolutely be pointed in their direction for that.

Your socialist views are very noble, but the reality is socialism doesn't work. It's great in theory to say tax higher earners, but higher earners tend to be highly skilled and a lot more mobile. Therefore at a certain tax burden, they can disappear into other more forgiving tax regimes, meaning the UK loses talent and tax revenue. I for one, begrudged paying 50% tax, and during that time I decreased my productivity because in effect you're working 12 hour days for the state rather than your family - that is not right however you dress it up. Not forgetting with the removal of the tax free allowance, I pay 60% tax on £20k on my income. Why should someone pay more than half what they earn to the state? My business collects £millions in tax for thee government, although I want to contribute to UK Plc, at some point enough is enough and sit there wondering why you've sacrificed your own life to pay for the more feckless.

The welfare state under Labour exploded and become a way of life for some people - that's not what it's there for, it is a safety net for the most vulnerable in society. We can all agree that this is sensible and morally right, but having generations of people in the same family that have never actually had a job is wrong. Labour created the framework for this happen. The Tories are trying to unwind that and as has been seen, a good chunk of the UK population support this.

Then the left often talk about ending Austerity - how? Whose paying for this? We are still spending around £100 billion a year more than we earn as a country. This can't go on indefinitely and the left portray a very irresponsible attitude to getting the deficit under control. You heard the rhetoric from Nicola Sturgeon about how she wants more money - where's it coming from? That that's not even working out how we start to pay back the £1 trillion plus that we owe. And that's the nub of why labour with a socialist leader will not win - the UK population realise that you have to balance the books at some point. Free money can't last forever.

The best Labour can hope under Jeremy Corbyn as their leader is a coalition with SNP in 5 years time. That really is a worry.

[Cheese Mechanic]

TomTheTyke said:

Can we please stop this idea of making out anybody on the left of politics to be a complete moron? I joined this website because I like cars, that is something we all have in common but it does seem as though the majority of people on here are certainly right-leaning in terms of politics. That is no bad thing in itself, everybody has the right to an opinion but I really don't think it's fair that the alternative standpoint is constantly talked about in this way. Disagree if you wish but can we refrain from childish insults?

I am a Labour voter and a socialist; I wish the Labour Party and the country took a more leftist stand. I am in favour of the nationalisation of transport and utilities, of a completely free NHS (at the point of use), a removal of university tuition fees and an increase in council housing. I am in favour of increasing taxation of the highest earners in order to pay for this, although it's worth adding that actually collecting the taxes currently evaded would help a great deal (£50 billion/year or so). We should also borrow for capital investment where appropriate.

I am not, however, a mindless lemming who somehow follows anything spouted by the Labour party without consideration. I continue to vote for them because they are the closest thing to what I want that might actually win. In other elections (EU) I have used a protest vote, for example to the Socialist Labour Party and in this general election I seriously considered voting for the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition but that would have been a 'waste' under FPTP in Barnsley East.

Moreover, I am not ignorant of what free market capitalism and the reduction of the deficit is meant to achieve. I studied parts of economic history at university, I genuinely understand why to some people the 'invisible hand' or Friedman's ideas, the freedom to build your own life free of government intervention in the market seems appealing and why it seems like common sense to balance a country's budget like that of a household.

However, I choose to disagree with what I feel are rational reasons. The current economic crisis was not caused by Labour's overspending on Socialist ideas but by a a failure of government, mainly in the USA, to regulate investment banks. I believe that this is being used as an excuse by the Tory party to reduce the role of the state (no surprise as this is their key principle) and I feel that this is damaging the lives of British people.

Of course I do not believe that people should be allowed unlimited benefits if they can work, that would be foolish. What I want is a socialist economy with as near to full employment as possible; a higher minimum wage that will actually reduce the benefits burden and comprehensive support around the crucial things a person needs to live: heat, light, education, transport, health. It is possible to achieve all this and more under free market capitalism but it is not possible for ALL to do it and therein lies the problem.

I am sorry for the essay length and for the bit that reads like me talking up my own education/ saying 'ooh aren't I clever.' I just want to point out that those of us on the Left are not 'loonies,' we just happen, following careful consideration of the facts and the morals to disagree with the idea that socialism's track record is terrible while that of capitalism is perfect.

Personally mate, I could not care how deluded you are , and what crackpot ideas you hold, but when you try and exercise them over others with the resultant fiscal chaos that brings to me and mine, then you are not somebody I disagree with , but an enemy to those I relate..

I have no real interest in politics, however I feel I have to take some owing to dangerous cranks like the Labour party thinking they have the God given right to interfere in peoples lives and steal from them. I hold no party affiliation, my only political aim is to keep irresponsible, delusional , idealogical crackpots out of government, and that me mate,from what you say includes you and your ilk.

As for treating the left with disdain, well, they reap what they have sown over the years.

Edited by Cheese Mechanic on Thursday 23 July 14:12

[gruffalo]

turbobloke said:

robinessex said:

Er, things also went wrong when the Labour government went conservative. Is there a clue there ?

Economically? That's what was being discussed...from 1997 to 2001 things didn't go too badly wrong with Gordo keeping reasonably close to the inherited Tory trajectory, apart from just under 70 stealth taxes by the end of 2002 with the resulting readies ready to be spunked up the wall.

He was just storing up problems for the future in the early years, pensions is one such example where he interfered and now we are up the creak on the pensions front.

Believing hos own rhetoric was a massive failure.

[turbobloke]

gruffalo said:

turbobloke said:

robinessex said:

Er, things also went wrong when the Labour government went conservative. Is there a clue there ?

Economically? That's what was being discussed...from 1997 to 2001 things didn't go too badly wrong with Gordo keeping reasonably close to the inherited Tory trajectory, apart from just under 70 stealth taxes by the end of 2002 with the resulting readies ready to be spunked up the wall.

He was just storing up problems for the future in the early years, pensions is one such example where he interfered and now we are up the creak on the pensions front.

Believing his own rhetoric was a massive failure.

Yes indeed, along with abolishing boom and bust and then saving the world we mustn't forget the early phase which included pensions raiding and selling off gold at the bottom so to speak after advertising the fact as well.

[Mrr T]

deadslow said:

Labour were spending like madmen, but it was a bunck of sickeningly greedy tories who crashed the economy. They now live in Monaco.

These Tories you speak of are they also lizards in disguise and answer to the great Lizard HRH Phill the Greek?

[turbobloke]

Mrr T said:

deadslow said:

Labour were spending like madmen, but it was a bunck of sickeningly greedy tories who crashed the economy. They now live in Monaco.

These Tories you speak of are they also lizards in disguise and answer to the great Lizard HRH Phill the Greek?

Good question.

Who knew that Clinton, Achtenberg, Ratings Agencies (etc) and some bankers in some banks were all Tories.

[MiniMan64]

As an aside does anyone think that the current difficulties of Labour lead to a fundamental split in the party between left and centre? NuLabour and new OldLabour?

There seems to be some fairly strong language developing from both "sides" at the moment.

[Zod]

MiniMan64 said:

As an aside does anyone think that the current difficulties of Labour lead to a fundamental split in the party between left and centre? NuLabour and new OldLabour?

There seems to be some fairly strong language developing from both "sides" at the moment.

Erm, I think everyone agrees that is the problem.

[MiniMan64]

Zod said:

MiniMan64 said:

As an aside does anyone think that the current difficulties of Labour lead to a fundamental split in the party between left and centre? NuLabour and new OldLabour?

There seems to be some fairly strong language developing from both "sides" at the moment.

Erm, I think everyone agrees that is the problem.

Exactly. My point is could it go as far as a full split in the party into two separate entities? It seems to be heading that way although surely it would be the only more complete way to commit electoral suicide than electing JC.

[Cheese Mechanic]

Mrr T said:

Having claimed to not be a moron you then post this?
While the lack of regulation of US investment banks contributed to the banking crisis there where many other factors of which the biggest was a property boom across much of the first world.
While this caused a slow down in economic activity and a fall in tax revenues, the fact is that despite Brown abolishing boom and bust its still with us.
Even Kaynes believed a Government should reduce and repay borrowings during time of boom so as to be able to borrow to increase activity when the bust comes.
NU Labour doubled UK Public Spending during the boom years. This was clearly not sustainable when the bust came.
Anybody (obviously not you) could see increasing expenditure so much they where having to increase borrowing during a boom was an idea which was going to come crashing down when the economy slowed.

Its incredibly ironic that the apologists for Brown's insanities immediately jump on the US Banks bandwagon , "It was them that done it" . When the piece of insanity which caused the vast majority of the sub prime toxic debt was a Socialist inspired policy.

That being the CRA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestme...

Written into law by Carter in 1977 it was enacted by Clinton after legislative changes in 1999. This barmy idea allowed people to borrow on the basis of their postcode , not on the principle of being able to pay it back. Fannioe and Freddie the state owned clearing banks would only lend money to banks on the basis that the Banks HAD to do such a % of loans under the CRA remit, to obtain loans under the historical basis. Clinton repealed Glass Steagal in 1999 as well.

Clinton then effectively did what Brown did here, drove a boom on cheap credit , by ensuring plentiful cheap money su[ply from central banks. A boom which could only have one ending, the one we got. Brown made matters even worse for us, he was running a deficit at the height of the boom, come bust,and the nightmare unfolded.Even though its accepted economically, that when times are good , its time to pay down borrowing, like Howard did in Australia. Its nothing short of a miracle that the country was not bankrupted full stop.

The Labour party and the left in general, atre obsessed with money, problem is they prove time and again, they are fiscally incompetent. Unbeleivable really.

[P5BNij]

[quote=turboblokeNobody is claiming that capitalism is perfect. However, the track record of Labour in the UK over the past 40 to 50 years really isn't good (describe their various shades of socialist red from Wilson to Foot to Blair any way you like). In basic terms, Labour screws the country as popular people buying 'free' rounds at the bar, Conservatives fix it as unpopular suppliers of medicine that tastes bad, then around we go. Personally I'd rather have the least-bad option of Conservatives in power without the need for major fixes, and with 10+ years ahead, there may be some respite available after 13 years of Labour followed by the dead weight of LibDems in the Coalition.

I should point out, as I've done repeatedly in the past, that I'm in favour of a Party that takes an axe to any Big Government, supports enterprise and doesn't vilify or penalise individuals for being financially successful - not for so-called trickle down reasons, but for the basic reality that successful businesses employ people and together with successful individuals pay for pretty much everything that gets spent on less successful people. It's good to encourage more of this because higher tax-take (not to be confused with higher tax rates) will help those in need via cash, rather than the empty promises and fine words of empathy from Labour which pay for nothing and lead to economic ruin eventually.
[/quote]

Best thing I've read in ages on PH, well put Turbobloke. I wonder how many Labour voters would agree deep down with the common sense displayed in the above, but wouldn't dare admit as much...

[Mrr T]

Cheese Mechanic said:

Its incredibly ironic that the apologists for Brown's insanities immediately jump on the US Banks bandwagon , "It was them that done it" . When the piece of insanity which caused the vast majority of the sub prime toxic debt was a Socialist inspired policy.

That being the CRA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestme...

Written into law by Carter in 1977 it was enacted by Clinton after legislative changes in 1999. This barmy idea allowed people to borrow on the basis of their postcode , not on the principle of being able to pay it back. Fannioe and Freddie the state owned clearing banks would only lend money to banks on the basis that the Banks HAD to do such a % of loans under the CRA remit, to obtain loans under the historical basis. Clinton repealed Glass Steagal in 1999 as well.

Clinton then effectively did what Brown did here, drove a boom on cheap credit , by ensuring plentiful cheap money su[ply from central banks. A boom which could only have one ending, the one we got. Brown made matters even worse for us, he was running a deficit at the height of the boom, come bust,and the nightmare unfolded.Even though its accepted economically, that when times are good , its time to pay down borrowing, like Howard did in Australia. Its nothing short of a miracle that the country was not bankrupted full stop.

The Labour party and the left in general, atre obsessed with money, problem is they prove time and again, they are fiscally incompetent. Unbeleivable really.

I agree with your post but as in many crisis there are more than one factor. The previous poster mentioned errors of regulation in the US and that clearly contributed. Lax regulation of insurance companies allowed AIG to write a credit insurance book for house loans which took no account of any potential down turn in the markets. The capital rules for investment banks, designed to allow them to buy deals and then sell the in the market, where used to turn most of them into massive leveraged holders of property abs funded by repo, a structure would clearly fall apart if the price on abs fell.

Finally let not forget The Great Gordon and Merv the swerve. Who both colluded to ensure the BOE monetary committee had no authority to take account of the UK property boom when setting interest rates.

What few people seem to realise if interest rates had been increase in the UK during the housing boom so as to reduce the froth we would not have had a UK crash. Mind you then UK growth would have been lower and GG would have been forced to spend less.