UK - Election 2015

[Craig B]

I fail to see the point of being Labour but going all right wing to win an election.

That means you haven't paid attention to the Thought of the Great Leader. Heed the words of his disciple Peter.

He described the party’s message to voters as “you know we’re for the poor, we hate the rich, ignoring the vast swathe of the population who exist in between.” He told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show: “In a sense were sent off in 2010 the sort of giant political experiment in which we were sort of sent out and told to sort of wave our fists you know angrily at the nasty Tories and wait for the public to realise how much they missed us, well they weren’t missing us and they didn’t miss us.”

Mandelson, that is. So no more hating the rich and saying the Tories are nasty. Tories win elections, so be like them.

 

[MikeG]

That means you haven't paid attention to the Thought of the Great Leader. Heed the words of his disciple Peter. Mandelson, that is. So no more hating the rich and saying the Tories are nasty. Tories win elections, so be like them.

Except of course those are your words and not his, and nothing like his implied position.

The soul destroying bollocks of "hating the rich" is just about the biggest fundamental failing in this entire nation, in my view. If the left wing don't get that, and fail to realise that the majority of Brits are most unlikely to agree with this pettiness, then they can spend even longer contemplating their navels, whilst listening to the dinosaurs in the union movement telling them to get even further over to the left.

 

[3point14]

Is anyone suggesting that?

Being right of where they are now, and having some sort of offering for people who want to achieve something in life, doesn't make them right wining. It just puts them closer to the centre, which is the only place you can ever win an election from in the UK.

As far as I can see, the 'centre' seems to be drifting to the right driven by very powerful corporate and media interests.

 

[MikeG]

I've not seen that trend, I don't think, personally, but we are discussing quite ephemeral things which are hard to define. Even if you are right and the direction of travel of the populace is rightward, I think you'd be very hard pushed to demonstrate that this was caused by corporate interests.

 

[Francesca R]

As far as I can see, the 'centre' seems to be drifting to the right driven by very powerful corporate and media interests.

Can you post some evidence please. Thanks.

 

[Craig B]

Except of course those are your words and not his, and nothing like his implied position.

His words are reported as

you know we’re for the poor, we hate the rich, ignoring the vast swathe of the population who exist in between. In a sense were sent off in 2010 the sort of giant political experiment in which we were sort of sent out and told to sort of wave our fists you know angrily at the nasty Tories and wait for the public to realise how much they missed us, well they weren’t missing us and they didn’t miss us.

I agree that Mandelson doesn't hate the rich. With good reason, in respect of his former master, Tony Blair. But what his implied position otherwise is I am in no position to say. He deplores being angry at the tories or calling them nasty. Does that imply anything?

The soul destroying bollocks of "hating the rich" is just about the biggest fundamental failing in this entire nation, in my view. If the left wing don't get that, and fail to realise that the majority of Brits are most unlikely to agree with this pettiness, then they can spend even longer contemplating their navels, whilst listening to the dinosaurs in the union movement telling them to get even further over to the left.

On the other hand I think I grasp your implied position. You want Labour to win, and are giving them valuable advice on how to do that. Well done, comrade!

 

[Francesca R]

In the Daily Mail I read that one Labour genius thinks the road to regaining power involves cutting welfare and blocking immigration.

Maybe it is.

In any case the road does not seem to involve higher taxes on the rich and talk of predator corporations. Given that the committed left among the electorate do not by themselves have the numbers to win elections it is rather odd that so many of them want to fight 2020 by marching further to the left of where Labour is now.

 

[MikeG]

....You want Labour to win, and are giving them valuable advice on how to do that. Well done, comrade!

Well, you may mock, and then you can feign incredulity, but you are actually on to something here. Over the long term, I have always wanted governance in this country to centre on the centre ground.

I have seen Tories in power for nearly 2 decades, and it wasn't a pleasant sight by the end. I saw Labour in power for too long, too. I would much rather each "side" got 2 terms, and then lost power, than see 3 or 4 election wins in a row from either side, which inevitably leads to the pendulum swinging too far the other way, and unnecessary over-corrections being made. I want less extreme politics, and this is well served by healthy and electable oppositions, so, although I have never voted Labour in my life, I cheered to the rafters when Blair got elected, and did the same when Cameron sort-of won 5 years ago. You probably don't want to believe it, but I want to see Labour becoming effective again in about 3 years time, and being in a position to seriously challenge at the next election.

 

[Francesca R]

His words are reported as I agree that Mandelson doesn't hate the rich. With good reason

Indeed there is no good reason to "hate the rich" in general. Or do you disagree?

And if there is good reason to "hate the rich" is there also good reason to to hate the poor? Or hate women? Or Scots?

He deplores being angry at the tories or calling them nasty. Does that imply anything?

Pragmatism at least. It is pretty silly to call the tories nasty. Just as it is pretty silly to call the SNP nasty. Or Labour nasty. Hating them is also rather daft. Do you disagree?

 

[3point14]

I've not seen that trend, I don't think, personally, but we are discussing quite ephemeral things which are hard to define. Even if you are right and the direction of travel of the populace is rightward, I think you'd be very hard pushed to demonstrate that this was caused by corporate interests.

Well, I do mantain that trying to define the whole gamut of political beliefs in one dimension, a point on a line, is foolish in the extreme, so it is a very ephemeral and, in my opinion, very unhelpful metric.

The evidence, or perhaps 'evidence' that I have observed for my theory is watching tax rates fall, public services privatised and public services requiring payment at the point of delivery (prescription chrges spring to mind).

We had a national railway, a national post office, national power and water companies. I would view this privatisation as a 'right wing' idea.

Either the actions of the government are not reflecting the will of the people or the people, and therefore the centre, are drifting to the right. Or rather, the 'right'.

 

[3point14]

Maybe it is.

In any case the road does not seem to involve higher taxes on the rich and talk of predator corporations. Given that the committed left among the electorate do not by themselves have the numbers to win elections it is rather odd that so many of them want to fight 2020 by marching further to the left of where Labour is now.

I think the labour party should have stayed on the left where it should be. If that means it becomes the third party of UK politics, so be it.

Pragmatic party politics ends up with the 'labour' party being no such thing.

 

[MikeG]

.......The evidence, or perhaps 'evidence' that I have observed for my theory is watching tax rates fall, public services privatised and public services requiring payment at the point of delivery (prescription chrges spring to mind).......

Oh OK, you're talking about rather a longer timescale than I thought you were. I supposed you were thinking of the last decade or so, but you are actually covering over 3 decades. In which case, I'll agree with your premise: we've moved rightwards. I don't personally detect any great movement that way in the last 10 or 15 years, however. I doubt very much if many people care whether their rubbish is collected by a council employee or by a private contractor, so long as it is collected regularly and efficiently, and so wouldn't any longer consider this sort of thing to be political.

 

[Craig B]

Maybe it is.

In any case the road does not seem to involve higher taxes on the rich and talk of predator corporations. Given that the committed left among the electorate do not by themselves have the numbers to win elections it is rather odd that so many of them want to fight 2020 by marching further to the left of where Labour is now.

There are no predator corporations? Are you sure? Or even if there are any, it would be lèse-majesté to say bad things about them? Well the BBC had better shut up, then.

Five of the world's largest banks are to pay fines totalling $5.7bn (£3.6bn) for charges including manipulating the foreign exchange market. Four of the banks - JPMorgan, Barclays, Citigroup and RBS - have agreed to plead guilty to US criminal charges. The fifth, UBS, will plead guilty to rigging benchmark interest rates.
Barclays was fined the most, $2.4bn, as it did not join other banks in November to settle investigations by UK, US and Swiss regulators. Barclays is also sacking eight employees involved in the scheme.
US Attorney General Loretta Lynch said that "almost every day" for five years from 2007, currency traders used a private electronic chat room to manipulate exchange rates. Their actions harmed "countless consumers, investors and institutions around the world", she said.

Wheesht, now!

 

[MikeG]

If you think mis-behaving banks are predator corporations, Craig, then you have a very different definition from the one which has been in common useage for decades. Banks may be all sorts of villains, but they aren't asset strippers, which is what I expect most people think of when they think of predator corporations.

 

[3point14]

Oh OK, you're talking about rather a longer timescale than I thought you were. I supposed you were thinking of the last decade or so, but you are actually covering over 3 decades. In which case, I'll agree with your premise: we've moved rightwards. I don't personally detect any great movement that way in the last 10 or 15 years, however. I doubt very much if many people care whether their rubbish is collected by a council employee or by a private contractor, so long as it is collected regularly and efficiently, and so wouldn't any longer consider this sort of thing to be political.

The post office privatisation was very recent.

The continued privatisation of the NHS is happening now.

The current discussion is of charging for GP visits or some other way to take money from the sick who have already paid for it in national insurance contributions.

The 50% tax rate was cut in 2013


It's still happening.

 

[3point14]

If you think mis-behaving banks are predator corporations, Craig, then you have a very different definition from the one which has been in common useage for decades. Banks may be all sorts of villains, but they aren't asset strippers, which is what I expect most people think of when they think of predator corporations.

Manipulating rates to shaft the consumer seems pretty predatory?

 

[Francesca R]

The evidence, or perhaps 'evidence' that I have observed for my theory is watching tax rates fall

Corporate tax rates have fallen but these tend to fall under left and right governments worldwide (there is a case for corporations not even being taxed). Personal tax rates have not fallen. People often point to very high marginal rates prior to Thatcher but IIRC there is much evidence that those rates really didn't bite anyone.

public services requiring payment at the point of delivery (prescription chrges spring to mind).

There seems to be an almost world-wide false idea that universal state benefits are somehow progressive / left and that reserving state benefits for the poor only is regressive. It is completely backwards. There is no income-egalitatarian justification for rich people to receive free prescriptions, or state pension, or winter fuel payment, or child benefit, or any benefit at all. I disagree that the withdrawal of universal benefits is a move to the right.

Finally, if you look at the total size of the state, meaning general government revenue or general government outlays, or the average of the two in order to abstract from the issue of deficits . . . Then that number has generally grown in recent decades which is nominally a shift left not right.

This is before considering social dimensions in which I think the country and most rich countries has cumulatively become way more liberal.

 

[Francesca R]

Are you sure?!

Why ask if I am sure about something I never claimed in the first place?

I suspect not for the first time you utterly missed the point. They that don't learn are doomed to repeat, as is said.

 

[3point14]

Corporate tax rates have fallen but these tend to fall under left and right governments worldwide (there is a case for corporations not even being taxed). Personal tax rates have not fallen. People often point to very high marginal rates prior to Thatcher but IIRC there is much evidence that those rates really didn't bite anyone.

The fact that they 'tend to fall under left and right governments' seems to indicate that the 'centre' is shifting to the 'left'.

The bolded is something I think is a not unreasonable idea. A period of adjustment would be required but it's much easier to tax private citizens at a higher rate, with wages adjusted accordingly, than it is to tax corporations who will spend mililons dodging taxes (then complain that their employees can't get to work because the services are too poor, go figure)

There seems to be an almost world-wide false idea that universal state benefits are somehow progressive / left and that reserving state benefits for the poor only is regressive. It is completely backwards. There is no income-egalitatarian justification for rich people to receive free prescriptions, or state pension, or winter fuel payment, or child benefit, or any benefit at all. I disagree that the withdrawal of universal benefits is a move to the right.

I disagree with your disagreement.

Finally, if you look at the total size of the state, meaning general government revenue or general government outlays, or the average of the two in order to abstract from the issue of deficits . . . Then that number has generally grown in recent decades which is nominally a shift left not right.

I think that could just as easily indicate a more right wing and less efficient government, fueling private profits with taxpayer money, raising turnover.

This is before considering social dimensions in which I think the country and most rich countries has cumulatively become way more liberal.

Socially, I think movement to the 'left' is happening in some areas. The whole thing is muddied by the utterly useless 'left/right' labelling.

 

[MikeG]

The post office privatisation was very recent.

The continued privatisation of the NHS is happening now.
The current discussion is of charging for GP visits or some other way to take money from the sick who have already paid for it in national insurance contributions.

The 50% tax rate was cut in 2013


It's still happening.

No, it isn't. You see, this is where people get wrapped up in rhetoric. Being required to be competitive in terms of service delivery is not the same as privatisation. Nothing is being sold off. The government still funds everything out of tax payer money. It is still free at the point of delivery. In the same way as people don't really care whether their rubbish is collected by a council employee or a private company, I'll warrant people don't really care about the contractual arrangements of the surgeon who is doing their hip operation or cataracts.

-

At what rate does a marginal tax band become left wing or right wing? There must be a crossover point. If 50% is definitely left wing, and 45% is definitely a right wing position, then would you be comfortable with a 47.5% rate being the good centrist position to take? And could you also explain how this isn't ridiculous?