Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party?

[BigMon]

Northernboy said:

A lot of people still view themselves as working class. I think that all of my family and friends do, and I still don’t really feel middle class, despite working in a professional career.

I don’t feel like I’ve much in common with the Conservative party, but am actively appalled by Labour, and that’s before we get onto which of them have policies that I think are best for the country or for me and my family.

This is me too. Grew up in the People's Republic of South Yorkshire, moved away in my twenties.

If I'd mentioned voting Conservative whilst living in Sheffield in the 80's I'd have been tarred and feathered.

And yet, many years later I haven't voted Labour for almost twenty years even though I do have quite a few left wing leanings. Corbyn and the hard left represent my views about as well as Screaming Lord Sutch did.

[Biggy Stardust]

biggbn said:

98elise said:

This is the problem for me. Corbyns policies would have decimated my finances. As far as I'm aware Kier has committed to continue with them, and hasn't said anything since.

Can you explain what policies would have decimated your finances? Genuine question as I can't even remember what his policies were!!

BTL tenants having a right to buy at massive discount to market value.
Three year fixed tenancies (tenant obviously wouldn't be bound by this but landlord would).
Rent control.
Taking a percentage of PLCs.
Capital control to prevent people leaving with their money.
Nationalisation of utilities etc at a price decided by government not market value, payable at an unspecified date in the future.
Tax. Lots of tax.
"A day of reckoning" for bankers & similar.

A particular favourite policy for me was scrapping nukes but sailing empty submarines around to preserve well-paid jobs.

Edited by Biggy Stardust on Saturday 5th June 16:46

[biggbn]

Biggy Stardust said:

biggbn said:

98elise said:

This is the problem for me. Corbyns policies would have decimated my finances. As far as I'm aware Kier has committed to continue with them, and hasn't said anything since.

Can you explain what policies would have decimated your finances? Genuine question as I can't even remember what his policies were!!

BTL tenants having a right to buy at massive discount to market value.
Three year fixed tenancies (tenant obviously wouldn't be bound by this but landlord would).
Rent control.
Taking a percentage of PLCs.
Capital control to prevent people leaving with their money.
Nationalisation of utilities etc at a price decided by government not market value, payable at an unspecified date in the future.
Tax. Lots of tax.
"A day of reckoning" for bankers & similar.

A particular favourite policy for me was scrapping nukes but sailing empty submarines around to preserve well-paid jobs.

Edited by Biggy Stardust on Saturday 5th June 16:46

And these were actually policies in the manifesto?

[AstonZagato]

2xChevrons said:

AstonZagato said:

Labour's obsession with class is bizarre. I think the class system essentially disappeared in the 60's/70's. Britain is a much more meritocratic place now. Class and identity politics resonates only with a tiny minority. However, much of Labour's rhetoric seems to focus on these areas - utterly irrelevant to the majority.

The rigid, deferential, know-your-place, know-your-betters, "God made them high and lowly, he ordered their estate" class system is long gone, but class in the economic sense still exists. It has to. Whether that's something people form an identity around - and whether the class they identify as/feel affinity to is the same as their economic class, is the issue.

In strictly economic terms all 'working class' means is that you have to sell your time/labour for money to capital in order to survive. It also means that you lack much or any capital of your own (you're probably renting rather than owning your home, for instance).

'Middle class' (again, strictly in economic terms) means that you have some degree of economic security and capital. You own/mortgage your home, you have savings, investments, secondary property etc. You may well own your own business (or be a partner in one) and you could afford to not labour for a while without quickly running out of the bare essentials of life, and you probably have some sort of income other than selling your labour. But in all likelyhood you still have to perform labour, either for yourself or for an employer, in order to stay in health and home, especially in the long term.

The economic 'upper class' are the ones who don't have to actually do another day's work in their lives in order to live. They have enough capital that not only do they gain plentiful income from it but they can use that capital to gain more capital. They're ultimately the ones who the working and (most of) the middle classes are selling their labour to. The upper class pay the middle class to manage their wealth for them, and the working class to create it.

There is no social or cultural aspect in any of those definitions, and it is possible for anyone from any social background to be in all three economic classes at different points in their life. There can be endless debate and quibbling about the exact defintions and characteristics of each class, and whether a consultant surgeon on £150,000/year is in the same economic class as a warehouse operative on £16,000/year just because they both have to sell their time, skills and labour in order to earn money, but fundamentally these economic classes will always exist in any vaguely capitalist society.

It's what that means, and how people feel about their economic class, and how that is the same as or different to their cultural/social class, that is behind so much of the breakup of traditional political narratives in recent history.

I think that "class" is the wrong word in this context. What you are mainly discussing is "wealth". Part of Labour's problem is that the poor tend to be socially conservative and uninteresting in identity politics. The wealthy tend to be more socially liberal. Labour's policies tend to be anti-wealth and pro-identity. The less well-off tend to want to become wealthy and don't care about socially liberal changes. The rich want to stay rich (or get richer) but see their world become more liberal. Labour's policies appeal to neither group.

[bitchstewie]

Biggy Stardust said:

BTL tenants having a right to buy at massive discount to market value.
Three year fixed tenancies (tenant obviously wouldn't be bound by this but landlord would).
Rent control.
Taking a percentage of PLCs.
Capital control to prevent people leaving with their money.
Nationalisation of utilities etc at a price decided by government not market value, payable at an unspecified date in the future.
Tax. Lots of tax.
"A day of reckoning" for bankers & similar.

A particular favourite policy for me was scrapping nukes but sailing empty submarines around to preserve well-paid jobs.

Edited by Biggy Stardust on Saturday 5th June 16:46

I couldn't tell you a single one of Starmer's policies but I can't say I remember him or any of his team mentioning those post-Corbyn either?

[98elise]

biggbn said:

98elise said:

This is the problem for me. Corbyns policies would have decimated my finances. As far as I'm aware Kier has committed to continue with them, and hasn't said anything since.

Can you explain what policies would have decimated your finances? Genuine question as I can't even remember what his policies were!!

State taking 10% of all equities. I have my life savings and pension cash in equities.

Right to buy extended to private tenants with landlords forced to fund give 25% discount. I have 4 so would effectively have to give away a house, regardless of the mortgage situation, and lose the income on all of them. This would also trgger a large CGT bill on any remaining money.

Land value taxes, which on the BLT's would reduce the income to negative values even if the tenants didn't buy. LTV on my own home would be about half my income (if it existed after the right to buy).

[welsh blackbird]

anonymoususer said:

Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party?
Maybe yes/ maybe no

But this woman can

Assuming her seat isn't abolished:-https://order-order.com/2021/06/03/6-northern-seats-to-be-scrapped-in-boundary-review/

[2xChevrons]

98elise said:

State taking 10% of all equities. I have my life savings and pension cash in equities.

The state was never going to take 10% of all equities. The plan was to require joint stock businesses with over 250 employees to transfer 10% of share capital to an ownership fund at the rate of 1% per year over a decade. The fund would be jointly owned by all employees, with dividends capped at £500/year/employee being paid out. The state never had any ownership of the affected businesses.

It's a policy that was badly under-developed and under-detailed when it was announced, with loads of practical pitfalls and obvious scope for unintended negative consequences. But it wasn't "the state appropriating 10% of all businesses" as some people deliriously put it.

[633Squadron]

2xChevrons said:

98elise said:

State taking 10% of all equities. I have my life savings and pension cash in equities.

The state was never going to take 10% of all equities. The plan was to require joint stock businesses with over 250 employees to transfer 10% of share capital to an ownership fund at the rate of 1% per year over a decade. The fund would be jointly owned by all employees, with dividends capped at £500/year/employee being paid out. The state never had any ownership of the affected businesses.

It's a policy that was badly under-developed and under-detailed when it was announced, with loads of practical pitfalls and obvious scope for unintended negative consequences. But it wasn't "the state appropriating 10% of all businesses" as some people deliriously put it.

You missed the point.
It is directly taxable income.

10% of every UK company is now a direct tax on the employees.
That is the nasty part. A pox on Corbyn and anyone else involved.

[anonymoususer]

welsh blackbird said:

Assuming her seat isn't abolished:-https://order-order.com/2021/06/03/6-northern-seats-to-be-scrapped-in-boundary-review/

Thank you. From reading that article you link to and others I get the impression the likely beneficiaries of all this may be the Lib Dems.
They will need to hire another taxi to transport them to their conference

[Unbusy]

The party of envy wouldn’t stop at a measly 10%. Their eyes would widen, their mouths drool and their hearts a flutter as the limit would be ratcheted up and up. Thank fk they imploded.

[Biggy Stardust]

biggbn said:

And these were actually policies in the manifesto?

I'm sure he's a very nice man who didn't really mean it & was just joking but you're welcome to check the veracity of my statements.

[turbobloke]

Labour manifesto - pdf at this link which is posted for the many not the few.

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/R...

[98elise]

2xChevrons said:

98elise said:

State taking 10% of all equities. I have my life savings and pension cash in equities.

The state was never going to take 10% of all equities. The plan was to require joint stock businesses with over 250 employees to transfer 10% of share capital to an ownership fund at the rate of 1% per year over a decade. The fund would be jointly owned by all employees, with dividends capped at £500/year/employee being paid out. The state never had any ownership of the affected businesses.

It's a policy that was badly under-developed and under-detailed when it was announced, with loads of practical pitfalls and obvious scope for unintended negative consequences. But it wasn't "the state appropriating 10% of all businesses" as some people deliriously put it.

You can dress it up however you want to, but the state taking 10% of something, and giving it to someone else is the state confiscating it.

I wouldn't be giving up 10% of my pension pot voluntarily.

[biggbn]

Biggy Stardust said:

biggbn said:

And these were actually policies in the manifesto?

I'm sure he's a very nice man who didn't really mean it & was just joking but you're welcome to check the veracity of my statements.

I was asking you a question, not sure why you have adopted that tone, I am genuinely interested.

Edit, I see someone has posted the manifesto. Thanks for that.

Edited by biggbn on Saturday 5th June 21:30

[biggbn]

98elise said:

2xChevrons said:

98elise said:

State taking 10% of all equities. I have my life savings and pension cash in equities.

The state was never going to take 10% of all equities. The plan was to require joint stock businesses with over 250 employees to transfer 10% of share capital to an ownership fund at the rate of 1% per year over a decade. The fund would be jointly owned by all employees, with dividends capped at £500/year/employee being paid out. The state never had any ownership of the affected businesses.

It's a policy that was badly under-developed and under-detailed when it was announced, with loads of practical pitfalls and obvious scope for unintended negative consequences. But it wasn't "the state appropriating 10% of all businesses" as some people deliriously put it.

You can dress it up however you want to, but the state taking 10% of something, and giving it to someone else is the state confiscating it.

I wouldn't be giving up 10% of my pension pot voluntarily.

Mmm...so it wasn't as claimed then? Am getting confused now?

[turbobloke]

biggbn said:

98elise said:

2xChevrons said:

98elise said:

State taking 10% of all equities. I have my life savings and pension cash in equities.

The state was never going to take 10% of all equities. The plan was to require joint stock businesses with over 250 employees to transfer 10% of share capital to an ownership fund at the rate of 1% per year over a decade. The fund would be jointly owned by all employees, with dividends capped at £500/year/employee being paid out. The state never had any ownership of the affected businesses.

It's a policy that was badly under-developed and under-detailed when it was announced, with loads of practical pitfalls and obvious scope for unintended negative consequences. But it wasn't "the state appropriating 10% of all businesses" as some people deliriously put it.

You can dress it up however you want to, but the state taking 10% of something, and giving it to someone else is the state confiscating it.

I wouldn't be giving up 10% of my pension pot voluntarily.

Mmm...so it wasn't as claimed then? Am getting confused now?

I already posted a link to the manifesto, take a look for yourself.

The sum total is hilarious, if your sense of humour can cope.

[Ecosseven]

turbobloke said:

biggbn said:

98elise said:

2xChevrons said:

98elise said:

State taking 10% of all equities. I have my life savings and pension cash in equities.

The state was never going to take 10% of all equities. The plan was to require joint stock businesses with over 250 employees to transfer 10% of share capital to an ownership fund at the rate of 1% per year over a decade. The fund would be jointly owned by all employees, with dividends capped at £500/year/employee being paid out. The state never had any ownership of the affected businesses.

It's a policy that was badly under-developed and under-detailed when it was announced, with loads of practical pitfalls and obvious scope for unintended negative consequences. But it wasn't "the state appropriating 10% of all businesses" as some people deliriously put it.

You can dress it up however you want to, but the state taking 10% of something, and giving it to someone else is the state confiscating it.

I wouldn't be giving up 10% of my pension pot voluntarily.

Mmm...so it wasn't as claimed then? Am getting confused now?

I already posted a link to the manifesto, take a look for yourself.

The sum total is hilarious, if your sense of humour can cope.

Page 60 of the manifesto.

"We will give workers a stake in the
companies they work for – and a share
of the profits they help create – by
requiring large companies to set up
Inclusive Ownership Funds (IOFs). Up
to 10% of a company will be owned
collectively by employees, with
dividend payments distributed equally
among all, capped at £500 a year,
and the rest being used to top up the
Climate Apprenticeship Fund. The cap
will rise to ensure that no more than
25% of dividends raised by IOFs are
redistributed in this way "

[biggbn]

turbobloke said:

biggbn said:

98elise said:

2xChevrons said:

98elise said:

State taking 10% of all equities. I have my life savings and pension cash in equities.

The state was never going to take 10% of all equities. The plan was to require joint stock businesses with over 250 employees to transfer 10% of share capital to an ownership fund at the rate of 1% per year over a decade. The fund would be jointly owned by all employees, with dividends capped at £500/year/employee being paid out. The state never had any ownership of the affected businesses.

It's a policy that was badly under-developed and under-detailed when it was announced, with loads of practical pitfalls and obvious scope for unintended negative consequences. But it wasn't "the state appropriating 10% of all businesses" as some people deliriously put it.

You can dress it up however you want to, but the state taking 10% of something, and giving it to someone else is the state confiscating it.

I wouldn't be giving up 10% of my pension pot voluntarily.

Mmm...so it wasn't as claimed then? Am getting confused now?

I already posted a link to the manifesto, take a look for yourself.

The sum total is hilarious, if your sense of humour can cope.

I thanked you for the link to the manifesto man. A quick scan didn't turn up much I disagree with to be honest. I can understand a protestation about the state taking 10% of private companies, but then that's not exactly what was proposed is it? Manifestos are a joke to be honest, wouldn't it be great if political parties were legally bound to meet the promises they make?

[survivalist]

At the beginning of the thread I thought is was unlikely, but possible that KS could at least create some change in the Labour Party.

Now I just think we should re-name the thread “who will be the next leader of the Labour Party”.

He’s become an irrelevance.