Corbynism for the UK
Discussion
Just reading this this morning.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65806599
Seems with massive debt, huge borrowing and deficit, high taxes, low productivity, possible move to four day weeks, strikes everywhere, we voted for a massive rejection of Jeremy Corbyn and yet we have ended up with pretty much his manifesto.
Is this a tick in a box for Corbyn (subsequently rejected by Labour) or a huge electoral deceit by the Tories? How did we end up here?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65806599
Seems with massive debt, huge borrowing and deficit, high taxes, low productivity, possible move to four day weeks, strikes everywhere, we voted for a massive rejection of Jeremy Corbyn and yet we have ended up with pretty much his manifesto.
Is this a tick in a box for Corbyn (subsequently rejected by Labour) or a huge electoral deceit by the Tories? How did we end up here?
Your post doesn’t really make sense. You appear to be conflating what you/many expected to be the outcome of the Labour manifesto under Corbyn with the current situation.
In any case we had high debt, borrowing and deficits before that election so that isn’t a new thing. Productivity has been pretty poor for a number of years and predates that also.
The only slightly new elements are strikes and potentially changing working patterns. The link to the UBI trial article you provide is unclear, it could aid productivity and has some theoretical merits so a trial seems sensible.
In any case we had high debt, borrowing and deficits before that election so that isn’t a new thing. Productivity has been pretty poor for a number of years and predates that also.
The only slightly new elements are strikes and potentially changing working patterns. The link to the UBI trial article you provide is unclear, it could aid productivity and has some theoretical merits so a trial seems sensible.
Ivan stewart said:
Politics drifting ever leftwards
Not sure that holds up to scrutiny. In certain elements perhaps, but the centre ground is where this country traditionally lies. So Labour pulling right and Tory’s left from their extremes isn’t unusual. There are certain aspects of the current government which are definitely not left or centre though Dingu said:
Your post doesn’t really make sense. You appear to be conflating what you/many expected to be the outcome of the Labour manifesto under Corbyn with the current situation.
In any case we had high debt, borrowing and deficits before that election so that isn’t a new thing. Productivity has been pretty poor for a number of years and predates that also.
The only slightly new elements are strikes and potentially changing working patterns. The link to the UBI trial article you provide is unclear, it could aid productivity and has some theoretical merits so a trial seems sensible.
No, what Corbyn proposed was as above which was firmly rejected at the ballot box, but now we find ourselves with those policies and the results that were expected from them which is what people feared in voting against him.In any case we had high debt, borrowing and deficits before that election so that isn’t a new thing. Productivity has been pretty poor for a number of years and predates that also.
The only slightly new elements are strikes and potentially changing working patterns. The link to the UBI trial article you provide is unclear, it could aid productivity and has some theoretical merits so a trial seems sensible.
Universal income, £15 an hour min wage all his ideas for the last election.
Was he therefore right and undone by the media as so often claimed? Or is the government wrong taking on his policies?
Dingu said:
Your post doesn’t really make sense. You appear to be conflating what you/many expected to be the outcome of the Labour manifesto under Corbyn with the current situation.
In any case we had high debt, borrowing and deficits before that election so that isn’t a new thing. Productivity has been pretty poor for a number of years and predates that also.
This is like when there were empty supermarket shelves in the early weeks of the pandemic in spring 2020 and people - some of them actual professional commentators with blogs on established websites and columns in 'respectable' newspapers - were saying "this is what would have happened if Jerumley Crobyns had won the election!"In any case we had high debt, borrowing and deficits before that election so that isn’t a new thing. Productivity has been pretty poor for a number of years and predates that also.
It's the next evolution in the usual right-wing commentariat tactic of blaming The Last Labour Government. Even they're admitting that that's getting a bit stale now the Conservatives have been in No.10 for longer than the last Labour government existed, so they've moved on to blaming things on a hypothetical Labour government from an alternative reality, where Labour's policies can somehow be blamed for the results achieved by a Conservative government with an 80-seat majority.
I'd also be interested to know where "massive debt, huge borrowing and deficit, high taxes, low productivity, possible move to four day weeks, strikes everywhere" were in the 2019 Labour manifesto. With the exception of the 'huge borrowing' (and even that depends on how you define both 'huge' and 'borrowing') they are all conspicuously absent from my copy.
Edit: OK, let's be semi-serious for a moment:
Tom8 said:
Was he therefore right and undone by the media as so often claimed? Or is the government wrong taking on his policies?
The Labour platform in 2019 was, in no small part, a conscious recognition that the status quo that has generally held sway in British politics since 1979 is running out of steam, and has generally been moribund since 2008. Obviously, it presented a broadly left-wing alternative. But the 'demand side solution' to our systemic problems is not the preserve of the left - you can find plenty of centrist and right-wing economic and political commentators, analysts, think tanks and even bodies like the IMF which prescribe the same broad problem (repressed productivity, stifled consumer demand, low wages, low skills and a socially and geographically unbalanced economy) and the same basic answers - more government investment in infrastructure and services, concerted effort to improve skills and education at a national level, relatively higher wages, and rebalancing/'levelling up'. There is a consensus out there that the Coalition era 'austerity' project at best achieved its monetary aim at a huge broader cost, and at worst was entirely counterproductive. That project rested on low investment, low growth, low taxes. It's therefore not surprising that, regardless of ideological territory, the solution is going to be the opposite.
There's nothing inherently left wing or 'socialist' about UBI or high minimum wages - it's possible to make perfectly sound and cogent right-wing cases for policies like that. Same with things like infrastructure nationalisation and price caps. It may be a different flavour of right-wingery to the ones we're used in the UK in this generation, but it doesn't make them (or a Conservative government looking at them) remotely left wing.
Edited by 2xChevrons on Monday 5th June 11:45
Tom8 said:
Just reading this this morning.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65806599
Seems with massive debt, huge borrowing and deficit, high taxes, low productivity, possible move to four day weeks, strikes everywhere, we voted for a massive rejection of Jeremy Corbyn and yet we have ended up with pretty much his manifesto.
Is this a tick in a box for Corbyn (subsequently rejected by Labour) or a huge electoral deceit by the Tories? How did we end up here?
When you read that this morning, did you notice it was a non-Governmental trial of 30 people, not the 2nd coming of JC? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65806599
Seems with massive debt, huge borrowing and deficit, high taxes, low productivity, possible move to four day weeks, strikes everywhere, we voted for a massive rejection of Jeremy Corbyn and yet we have ended up with pretty much his manifesto.
Is this a tick in a box for Corbyn (subsequently rejected by Labour) or a huge electoral deceit by the Tories? How did we end up here?
In terms of low productivity and massive debt, anyone with half a brain could see that’s where Cameron / Osborne were taking us. Basic economics is still basic economics regardless of who is in power.
If you aim for low investment, low growth and austerity, this is what you get. Why did you expect something different?
Tom8 said:
Is this a tick in a box for Corbyn
Corbynism was not a bad concept.Corbyn would have actually built more things with the money that was borrowed.
The problem was the baggage he held with him and alongside him.
As for UBI, that's where we seem to be heading, whether we vote for it or not.
Carl_Manchester said:
Corbynism was not a bad concept.
Corbyn would have actually built more things with the money that was borrowed.
Yes.Corbyn would have actually built more things with the money that was borrowed.
Carl_Manchester said:
The problem was the baggage he held with him and alongside him.
As for UBI, that's where we seem to be heading, whether we vote for it or not.
Why do you think UBI is where we're headed?As for UBI, that's where we seem to be heading, whether we vote for it or not.
Small scale trials of UBI are irrelevant - and even the Finnish trial was small - because the big question is the effects it would have on a macro scale, not how it alters the wellbeing of the individual participants in a small trial. I'd like to see it being trialled on a national scale. Just not here.
Ignoring the usual childish left/right, Lab/Con political bickering - UBI can’t ever be a realistic proposition can it?
UBI, as in absolutely everyone over a certain age gets it, or am I missing something?
Who would stack supermarket shelves, be a school cleaner, pick fruit & veg etc. etc?
Why work 40 hours a week when you could receive UBI + work 20 hours and be better off?
Would, for example, a Premier League footballer get it?
Most importantly, how the f
k would we (the country) pay for it?
UBI, as in absolutely everyone over a certain age gets it, or am I missing something?
Who would stack supermarket shelves, be a school cleaner, pick fruit & veg etc. etc?
Why work 40 hours a week when you could receive UBI + work 20 hours and be better off?
Would, for example, a Premier League footballer get it?
Most importantly, how the f
k would we (the country) pay for it?swanny71 said:
Ignoring the usual childish left/right, Lab/Con political bickering - UBI can’t ever be a realistic proposition can it?
UBI, as in absolutely everyone over a certain age gets it, or am I missing something?
Who would stack supermarket shelves, be a school cleaner, pick fruit & veg etc. etc?
Robots? UBI, as in absolutely everyone over a certain age gets it, or am I missing something?
Who would stack supermarket shelves, be a school cleaner, pick fruit & veg etc. etc?
They've been predicted to replace everything forever, but some day soon ish they may well actually do it for a lot of stuff. Once a viable and affordable robot exists for a task I can't see any company turning it down.
The current set up may well disincentivise work for many with various barriers and levels.
However embarking on something so potentially far out without attempting to address the gaping holes and deformities in the current system seems more than a little daffy.
swanny71 said:
Ignoring the usual childish left/right, Lab/Con political bickering - UBI can’t ever be a realistic proposition can it?
UBI, as in absolutely everyone over a certain age gets it, or am I missing something?
Who would stack supermarket shelves, be a school cleaner, pick fruit & veg etc. etc?
Why work 40 hours a week when you could receive UBI + work 20 hours and be better off?
Would, for example, a Premier League footballer get it?
Most importantly, how the fk would we (the country) pay for it?
Universal Basic Income means everyone gets it, regardless of how much (or little) wealth they have or how much work they do (or don't do). UBI, as in absolutely everyone over a certain age gets it, or am I missing something?
Who would stack supermarket shelves, be a school cleaner, pick fruit & veg etc. etc?
Why work 40 hours a week when you could receive UBI + work 20 hours and be better off?
Would, for example, a Premier League footballer get it?
Most importantly, how the f
k would we (the country) pay for it?No serious current proposal for UBI (by that I am excluding the ones which amount to communism - "seize the means of production and divide GNP by the total population" sort of thing) puts the amount at anything like a livable amount for the average person. Perhaps the words "basic income" are creating a wrong impression? It's not intended to be a basic income in the sense of it being equivalent to 40hrs per week at the minimum wage.
Most of the proposals for national UBI in the UK fall into the range of providing people between £50 and £75 per week - no more than about £4000 per year. You're not going to be cutting your work hours in half or giving up your job shelf-stacking or picking veg in the fields for that...but it might well introduce some very welcome financial breathing room and spending power.
Other terms for UBI of this sort include things like "citizen's stipend" or "national dividend", which perhaps get the idea across a bit better. The second one especially - it's a portion of national wealth-generation divested to every 'shareholder' in society.
https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/universal-basic-inco...
This page from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation provides a good overview for UBI etc. schemes in the UK, at various levels. Of course the JRF is generally warm to the idea of UBIs, but since its primary mission is the study and elimination of poverty it does its due diligence by looking for unintended consequences and other, potentially more effective, ways of using the same spending. It does also estimate some numbers for how much a 'true' UBI (set at the Minimum Income Standard - about £25,000/year) would cost - the answer is that it would cost a lot and require some extremely swinging high-rate taxes.
The idea is that everyone gets it, and doesn't lose it by working. In practice, the ramping up of income taxes would wipe it out at a fairly low level.
The claimed advantages include the idea that it would be cheaper to administer than multiple means, need or contribution assessed benefits including pensions, that it would eliminate the "benefit trap" because nobody would be worse off for working, and that it would result in people doing societally useful things without needing to monetise them enough to live on.
I don't think the first one works, you couldn't set UBI at a high enough level that you wouldn't also need to provide things like disability benefits and housing benefit. The second one kind of works, though whether the number of dole bludgers who would start doing some work outweighs the number of people doing crappy poor paid jobs who would just say "I don't need this st anymore" is debatable. The third one - yeah, maybe we'd see an explosion of the arts. Or maybe we'd just see a lot more people spending their lives smoking dope in front of a games console.
I think the main draw for some of the proponents is the removal of stigma and harassment from a life of unemployment. I don't really see the legitimisation of idleness as a lifestyle choice as a positive.
The claimed advantages include the idea that it would be cheaper to administer than multiple means, need or contribution assessed benefits including pensions, that it would eliminate the "benefit trap" because nobody would be worse off for working, and that it would result in people doing societally useful things without needing to monetise them enough to live on.
I don't think the first one works, you couldn't set UBI at a high enough level that you wouldn't also need to provide things like disability benefits and housing benefit. The second one kind of works, though whether the number of dole bludgers who would start doing some work outweighs the number of people doing crappy poor paid jobs who would just say "I don't need this s
t anymore" is debatable. The third one - yeah, maybe we'd see an explosion of the arts. Or maybe we'd just see a lot more people spending their lives smoking dope in front of a games console.I think the main draw for some of the proponents is the removal of stigma and harassment from a life of unemployment. I don't really see the legitimisation of idleness as a lifestyle choice as a positive.
swanny71 said:
Ignoring the usual childish left/right, Lab/Con political bickering - UBI can’t ever be a realistic proposition can it?
UBI, as in absolutely everyone over a certain age gets it, or am I missing something?
Who would stack supermarket shelves, be a school cleaner, pick fruit & veg etc. etc?
Why work 40 hours a week when you could receive UBI + work 20 hours and be better off?
Would, for example, a Premier League footballer get it?
Most importantly, how the fk would we (the country) pay for it?
The closest I've seen to this model is the Israeli Kibbutz system. However, 100 odd years on, pretty much all of the 250+ Kibbutzes have now been privatised.UBI, as in absolutely everyone over a certain age gets it, or am I missing something?
Who would stack supermarket shelves, be a school cleaner, pick fruit & veg etc. etc?
Why work 40 hours a week when you could receive UBI + work 20 hours and be better off?
Would, for example, a Premier League footballer get it?
Most importantly, how the f
k would we (the country) pay for it?Back in the 80s when I visited, the oldies still thought the idea was great, but the younger generation were either bone idle or wanted to get rich by using their loaves & being independent - I don't think UBI would either work or be popular here. As you say, who would pay for it anyway?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff