Jeremy Corbyn & Tom Watson elected leader and deputy leader of the Labour Party

[Senex]

If it wasn't for rogue tabloid journalists stalking family members of people standing for Labour leader then Chuka Umunna may have finished up being Labour leader, who would have stood a much better chance of getting votes from non-Labour party members.

However hard they tried, they could scarcely have found a leader less likely to get votes from non-Labour-Party members than Jeremy Corbyn. The Labour Party has shewn us very clearly that it sees ideological purity as much more important than bringing about change for the benefit of a large portion of the electorate.

 

[bramling]

Why should the issue certainly have disappeared by 2025? The Brexiteers never let the issue disappear after the referendum 41 years ago, even though the majority against them was vastly stronger that their winning figure in 2016.

Because it would be ridiculous to re-join, especially as it would mean we would likely have to accept things which would almost certainly be bad for Britain. It's one thing arguing over whether we should be in the single market, but quite another even contemplating joining the Euro. Even the most hardened remainers don't advocate that, it would be suicidal for Britain, just like it would be for an independent Scotland.

In any case, one wonders if there will be an EU for us to join in 2025.

Britain needs to get on and make Brexit work, and stop the silly trying to wreck things from within just to prove a point.

Remember it wasn't the hard-core "Brexiteers " that swung the referendum, but the population as a whole. Every voter in the referendum was a grown adult, and being a grown adult means taking responsibility for one's actions. Every leave voter I know is fully aware thugs may be tough in the short-term. If public opinion as a whole had not shifted in those 41 years, perhaps because today's EU is very different from what was voted on then, remain would have won, but reality is leave won, because people want to leave- strangely enough.

 

[Busaholic]

My wife joined the Labour Party lite, as it were, with the £3 entry fee, and after a lot of angst forked out another £25 when Corbyn's re-election came up, even though in the end she felt unable to vote for either Corbyn or Owen Smith, whom she regards as a dullard. She still gets texts, emails, etc though, and today was amused (bemused?) to get one from John McDonnell that ended with the word 'Solidarity'. Her snort could have been heard in St Ives!

 

[Tetchytyke]

The LibDems were naive in the Coalition, they kept their heads down for "unity" whilst Cameron was busily spinning against them at every opportunity. Punishing the Lib Dems for the Coalition was the ultimate madness, unless we take the defection of their vote to the Tories to mean that people wanted more austerity and more tuition fees.

Punishing the Lib Dems for tuition fees by voting for the party who want to see them set by market forces is utter lunacy.

As for Remain voters "not caring" by 2020, we'll see. If the economy is booming then no, they probably won't. But the chances of that look slim. It was a 48/52 split. If the economy tanks due to something they didn't want, Renainers are going to vote appropriately. And it won't take many Leavers to change sides (or die, to be quite honest) to swing the balance.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I don't think it is as clear cut as that. Corbyn the raging lefty is comfortably to the right of where David Owen was when he led the Gang of Four out to the Social Democrats. The problem is that the Overton Window has lurched so far to the right that ideas such as keeping the NHS and the trains in public ownership are now seen as basically communist. It's not like Corbyn is going on about five year plans and the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, is it?

I don't think that's really accurate. Very few people outside the Conservative party are really criticising Corbyn about wanting to have the NHS or the trains in public ownership - indeed those policies have quite widespread popular support, so it's not really correct to imply those ideas are outside the mainstream of UK politics today. Apart from the issue of leadership (which is where he really hasn't been able to connect with much of the public), the policies he's being widely criticised for tend to on defence and the economy.

I think it is too easy to say Corbyn was preaching to the converted: he wasn't, look how many came back to Labour from the Greens and the Lib Dems.

I think your logic is flawed. Firstly, since Corbyn became leader, people have only really swapped in any numbers from the Greens. People swapping from the LibDems on the whole did so in 2015, before Corbyn became leader. And those swapping from the Greens since 2015 on the whole are amongst the converted. They are people who do largely already agreed with Corbyn on policy/general approach, and were previously voting Green because they thought the Greens were (pre-Corbyn) closer to that approach and more left-wing.

So I would say the point still stands that Corbyn, on the whole, is not reaching out to people who didn't already largely agree with him.

Corbyn wasn't preaching to the UKIP racists and the Tory right-wingers, that much is true, but who really expected him to? Ed Miliband tried that and look where that got him.

Well aside from questioning how many UKIP supporters are racists, why shouldn't he be expected to reach out to those people? I want a Labour leader to be trying to convince anyone who's willing to listen that the Labour approach is best. Just because someone is right-wing now doesn't necessarily mean that they might not change their mind, if presented with reasonable arguments (and not with insults).

 

[Butts]

The LibDems were naive in the Coalition, they kept their heads down for "unity" whilst Cameron was busily spinning against them at every opportunity. Punishing the Lib Dems for the Coalition was the ultimate madness, unless we take the defection of their vote to the Tories to mean that people wanted more austerity and more tuition fees.

Punishing the Lib Dems for tuition fees by voting for the party who want to see them set by market forces is utter lunacy.

With regard to Tuition Fees have you ever considered that should they be free as they are in Scotland this is effectively a Middle Class subsidy along with Free Prescriptions, Eye tests and Dental Check ups that we benefit from. Throw in free personal care for the elderly and this is one reason why higher rate taxpayers in Scotland should not be to miffed they will be paying out a bit more than the rest of the UK.

 

[miami]

The LibDems were naive in the Coalition, they kept their heads down for "unity" whilst Cameron was busily spinning against them at every opportunity. Punishing the Lib Dems for the Coalition was the ultimate madness, unless we take the defection of their vote to the Tories to mean that people wanted more austerity and more tuition fees.

Did lib dems actually mvoe to tories, or did lib dems stay at home, and normal tories that stay at home come out because '2010-2015 was actually quite good'?

As for Remain voters "not caring" by 2020, we'll see. If the economy is booming then no, they probably won't. But the chances of that look slim. It was a 48/52 split. If the economy tanks due to something they didn't want, Renainers are going to vote appropriately. And it won't take many Leavers to change sides (or die, to be quite honest) to swing the balance.

24% of the population, 37% of the vote, wins 100% of the power. If 80% of the remain voters vote for a remain party (so snp or libdem), it will be a landslide, probably a lib-dem majority, but certainly a libdem/snp coalition.

Let the 52% be split between Labour, Tory and UKIP, 17% each.

 

[miami]

Well, there are two who voted Remain in this residence who felt that this was our view on what was offered by the referendum, who would both see Hell freeze over before moving our political allegiances from the Conservative Party to the "LibDems"..:roll:

While I can see why people would support May's government, and I can see why they would support Cameron's government (even without the moderation of the coalition), I have no idea how someone can support both Cameron and May, or someone could support both Blair and Corbyn.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

While I can see why people would support May's government, and I can see why they would support Cameron's government (even without the moderation of the coalition), I have no idea how someone can support both Cameron and May, or someone could support both Blair and Corbyn.

I think the "Blair and Corbyn" comparison to "Cameron and May" is somewhat as different as chalk and cheese, when the matter of not switching personal voting from one party to another was the main point of the posting that I made.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Did lib dems actually mvoe to tories, or did lib dems stay at home, and normal tories that stay at home come out because '2010-2015 was actually quite good'?

I think in the south west, which has always traditionally been a Liberal stronghold, they moved to the Tories.

It's a strange one. Clegg is criticised for his stance on tuition fees, but these people voted for the party who want tuition fees to be uncapped and set by market forces. So either people didn't really care about tuition fees, or people are stupid.

With regard to Tuition Fees have you ever considered that should they be free as they are in Scotland this is effectively a Middle Class subsidy along with Free Prescriptions, Eye tests and Dental Check ups that we benefit from. Throw in free personal care for the elderly and this is one reason why higher rate taxpayers in Scotland should not be to miffed they will be paying out a bit more than the rest of the UK.

I'm not sure about whether tuition fees should be free to students- I don't disagree with the idea of tuition fees, truth be told- but yes, I'd agree that the middle classes benefit most from them. And so they should button it when tax rises to pay for it.

Well aside from questioning how many UKIP supporters are racists, why shouldn't he be expected to reach out to those people? I want a Labour leader to be trying to convince anyone who's willing to listen that the Labour approach is best.

I think the UKIP support is a combination of the outright racists who previously voted for the BNP- there were plenty in northern towns- and people who are angry at their situation and misguidedly blame foreigners for it all.

It's a difficult balance to find. Calling racism a "reasonable economic fear" just legitimises it. We've seen that with the rise of race-related attacks in the last 12-24 months. But then again there are plenty who do have a "reasonable economic fear" and labelling them racist just pushes them further away.

I don't know about UKIP supporters, but their poster boy Farage has recently said that he wants UKIP to be a "radical anti-immigrant party" and it is all the fault of Douglas Carswell that it isn't. Farage is many things but stupid he ain't: if he's claiming he wants UKIP to be a "radical anti-immigrant party" it'll be because he thinks his party's support is, well, radically anti-immigrant.

 

[pemma]

26,000 people who were Labour Party members last July have either cancelled their subscription or let it expire: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39154212

 

[LateThanNever]

With regard to Tuition Fees have you ever considered that should they be free as they are in Scotland this is effectively a Middle Class subsidy along with Free Prescriptions, Eye tests and Dental Check ups that we benefit from. Throw in free personal care for the elderly and this is one reason why higher rate taxpayers in Scotland should not be to miffed they will be paying out a bit more than the rest of the UK.

Well lack of student fees may or not be a middle class subsidy (are there any working class left?) but at least you are without the more or less life long indebtedness. I know that's owed only to the government so as the UK government creates sterling out of thin air it doesn't matter. But today's Neoliberal idea is to package the loans up and then sell them on to private companies. You then have a private company chasing you for debt who make more profit the more they collect, so have every incentive to cut corners. Which for students makes no sense whatsoever.
I'll take the no tuition fees every time.

 

[Dave1987]

I think Corbyn has totally failed to understand that if he stays Labour will lose and lose BIG at the next GE. It's a real shame because there is no effective opposition to May's Govt at the moment. I will never vote Labour under Corbyn. One hopes that the Lib Dems can save us all and give us a good centre party.

 

[miami]

Well lack of student fees may or not be a middle class subsidy (are there any working class left?) but at least you are without the more or less life long indebtedness. I know that's owed only to the government so as the UK government creates sterling out of thin air it doesn't matter. But today's Neoliberal idea is to package the loans up and then sell them on to private companies. You then have a private company chasing you for debt who make more profit the more they collect, so have every incentive to cut corners. Which for students makes no sense whatsoever.
I'll take the no tuition fees every time.

I'd be happy with a graduate tax, say 9% extra on income tax over the median income. It gives the certainty that they can't suddenly decide that the loans must be repaid regardless, and also means those that benefit the most pay the most. You could even put in tax breaks for certain jobs (doctors etc). For many people they'll never pay off their student loan in any case.

What I don't like is the view that a builder/train driver/hair dresser having to pay for Tony Blair's degree, which is what happens with tuition paid from general taxes.

I think Corbyn has totally failed to understand that if he stays Labour will lose and lose BIG at the next GE.

I think he does understand that, I think he doesn't care.

 

[PHILIPE]

26,000 people who were Labour Party members last July have either cancelled their subscription or let it expire: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39154212

Blaming Brexit, no. Corbyn's totally to blame and nothing to do with handling Brexit.

 

[HSTEd]

The real problem with student loans is that they are effectively worthless.

They are sold for a tiny fraction of their face value - which demonstrates that the entire scheme is just an accounting trick to hold down apparent public borrowing for political reasons.

If I have a million students drawing loans of £12bn per year, but the loan book generated each year is only worth £2bn, I can hardly claim that I have saved £12bn in public expenditure by having them.

I have saved £2bn in total, the rest of the money is still spent by the state with no way of getting it back from the students.

Student loans are simply a way of putting up tax on people who can't just get their parents to pay for their degree or who are rich enough that they can pay their degrees off in short order. They hammer people in the middle who earn just enough to repay the loan but not enough to be able to overcome the enormous interest rate.

Given the true value of the loans in question it is likely that a one year suspension of the triple lock could easily pay for the abolition of tuition fees, but the state is more interested in bribing pensioners and holding down apparent public borrowing to lie to the public (since the markets already know this and it is thus priced into to gilt yields etc).

 

[pemma]

I'd be happy with a graduate tax, say 9% extra on income tax over the median income. It gives the certainty that they can't suddenly decide that the loans must be repaid regardless, and also means those that benefit the most pay the most. You could even put in tax breaks for certain jobs (doctors etc). For many people they'll never pay off their student loan in any case.

What I don't like is the view that a builder/train driver/hair dresser having to pay for Tony Blair's degree, which is what happens with tuition paid from general taxes.

The second part of your post was New Labour's argument for introducing the fees in the first place.

I think the idea of a graduate tax is a good one. I'd personally think there should be a formula e.g. if n = number of years getting university tuition and y equals number of years a graduate tax has to be paid for then y=4n.

 

[LateThanNever]

The real problem with student loans is that they are effectively worthless.

They are sold for a tiny fraction of their face value - which demonstrates that the entire scheme is just an accounting trick to hold down apparent public borrowing for political reasons.

If I have a million students drawing loans of £12bn per year, but the loan book generated each year is only worth £2bn, I can hardly claim that I have saved £12bn in public expenditure by having them.

I have saved £2bn in total, the rest of the money is still spent by the state with no way of getting it back from the students.

Student loans are simply a way of putting up tax on people who can't just get their parents to pay for their degree or who are rich enough that they can pay their degrees off in short order. They hammer people in the middle who earn just enough to repay the loan but not enough to be able to overcome the enormous interest rate.

Given the true value of the loans in question it is likely that a one year suspension of the triple lock could easily pay for the abolition of tuition fees, but the state is more interested in bribing pensioners and holding down apparent public borrowing to lie to the public (since the markets already know this and it is thus priced into to gilt yields etc).

Agree with this.
Of course the real con is that we are misled (if not lied to) about where money comes from. So nobody says that the government can issue money interest free to whoever is prepared to accept it in return. The government only have to control inflation and we've been below target for that for almost all of the last decade!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The second part of your post was New Labour's argument for introducing the fees in the first place.

I think the idea of a graduate tax is a good one. I'd personally think there should be a formula e.g. if n = number of years getting university tuition and y equals number of years a graduate tax has to be paid for then y=4n.

I'm not sure about a graduate tax. I think the problem is, do you cap the total amount anyone can pay in graduate tax at whatever the fees would've been (plus reasonable interest)? If you do, then for all practical purposes, you just have almost exactly the system we currently have: Basically a loan paid off via your tax code. So why change anything?

But if you don't cap the total tax paid to the fees, then you'll end up in a situation where wealthy people pay less then poorer people (because anyone who can afford it will just pay the fees upfront so they avoid paying the graduate tax, and therefore pay less).

 

[Tetchytyke]

The advantage of student loans, rather than a tax, is twofold. Firstly it doesn't show on balance sheets- the outlay and the asset are the same. And secondly, it can still be enforced against people who leave the UK TO work abroad.

The disadvantage of student loans is the way that the highest earners pay less. The government did consult on preventing early repayment, and decided it was unenforceable.

 

[pemma]

I'm not sure about a graduate tax. I think the problem is, do you cap the total amount anyone can pay in graduate tax at whatever the fees would've been (plus reasonable interest)? If you do, then for all practical purposes, you just have almost exactly the system we currently have: Basically a loan paid off via your tax code. So why change anything?

A student loan is not paid off via your tax code though. It's paid off based on your monthly income, which can cause issues.

For a plan 1 student loan once you hit £1,457 you make a repayment of 9% of anything over that. If you earn £1,416 a month (£17,000 a year) but one month get a £1,000 bonus you will have a payment of £86.31 deducted that month (and nothing any other month) but if you earn £18,000 a year and get no bonus you will make a payment of £3.87 a month (£46.44 a year.)

You can only claim back an over payment if your total income for the year is under 12 times the monthly threshold. Therefore if you are on £18,000 and are made redundant in the final month of the tax year and get 4 weeks pay in lieu of notice added on to your normal monthly pay you will have a repayment of £128.49 deducted from your final pay cheque and you can't claim anything back. However, if you are made redundant in the first month of the tax year and don't earn over 12 times the monthly threshold in the rest of the tax year you can claim back the full £128.49.

Nice logical system! (Yes I realise in the second case it's the same with both income tax and NI but not in the first case.)

But if you don't cap the total tax paid to the fees, then you'll end up in a situation where wealthy people pay less then poorer people (because anyone who can afford it will just pay the fees upfront so they avoid paying the graduate tax, and therefore pay less).

It'll be a risk to do that as you have no idea whether you'll get a dream well paid job or will end up doing supermarket/admin work for years after graduating.

And secondly, it can still be enforced against people who leave the UK TO work abroad.

Easy solution to that problem with a graduate tax proposal. In accepting financial support you agree to live and work in the UK for x years or pay a tax of y for each year you undertake paid work abroad.

The disadvantage of student loans is the way that the highest earners pay less. The government did consult on preventing early repayment, and decided it was unenforceable.

Until recently early repayment didn't make any financial sense. Why would you pay off a loan at 2% interest when you could earn double that in savings? Of course now it's 1.25% interest on the loan and bank accounts which offer over 1.25% in interest usually have restrictions on them e.g. maximum monthly pay in or the interest only applying for the first £2,500.

 

[HSTEd]

Until recently early repayment didn't make any financial sense. Why would you pay off a loan at 2% interest when you could earn double that in savings? Of course now it's 1.25% interest on the loan and bank accounts which offer over 1.25% in interest usually have restrictions on them e.g. maximum monthly pay in or the interest only applying for the first £2,500.

What are you talking about?
I have a 1.25% interest loan, but that is because I paid £3.5k

The modern tuition fee loan is much higher than that.
During the duration of your course and basically for the first year after you pay RPI+3%.
You then pay between RPI+3% and 1.6% depending on your income.
Ofcourse if you don't reply to SLCs continuous demands to know why you aren't repaying your loan they will punish you by charging you RPI+3% anyway.

Considering your first £9k tuition fees will have £1300 in interest on them alone before you even leave university, paying in advance starts to look rather good to be honest.

The advantage of student loans, rather than a tax, is twofold. Firstly it doesn't show on balance sheets- the outlay and the asset are the same.

In other words, its a way to lie to the British public about the state of the public finances?

 

[Tetchytyke]

In other words, its a way to lie to the British public about the state of the public finances?

Yep.

See PFI for further details.

 

[pemma]

What are you talking about?

I thought it was straight forward logic.

Say you have a £10,000 loan which has an interest rate of 2% but a bank offers a savings account with an interest rate of 5% (which was commonplace until around 2009) and you have £10,000 you could either:
1. Pay off the loan in full and risk having to borrow at a higher rate when you buy a house.
2. Put the £10,000 in a savings account and only pay what repayments you are required to pay. After a year you have £500 interest on your £10k savings but your loan can only increase by a maximum of £200 - so you are £300 up.

The modern tuition fee loan is much higher than that.
...
Considering your first £9k tuition fees will have £1300 in interest on them alone before you even leave university, paying in advance starts to look rather good to be honest.

The original graduate tax proposal was an alternative to the 'modern tuition fee loan' and if a future government comes up with a new scheme which involves a graduate tax it's likely a new scheme would in fact be a new scheme not the existing scheme with an amendment.

 

[pemma]

Former Labour member George Galloway is to stand in the Gorton by-election.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Can anyone confirm what Tom Watson actually said with regards to Momentum this week?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Can anyone confirm what Tom Watson actually said with regards to Momentum this week?

Can't offhand find any written transcript of it, but you can listen to the original interview here

 

[miami]

Former Labour member George Galloway is to stand in the Gorton by-election.

Excellent, more votes taken from Labour. This should be a painfully safe seat, but there's a chance the lib dems will take it. Oh how hilarious that would be.

 

[DarloRich]

funny how the Clownbynians want unconditional loyalty to the dear sainted Jezza but are happy to agitate for Tom Watson, the deputy leader, to be removed from post. Entryist fellow traveler deluded stupidity at its best.