The Left's way forward

Oh crikey Anya a monkey could stand for the Labour party in this town and still win by a MASSIVE majority.

Renationalise the NHS and untilities. I don't understand what the difference is between public and private sector workers. All work and all pay tax.

Reorganise education. Not in the piecemeal political way it has been done by previous governments. Speak to teachers at the chalkface not people who haven't been a classroom for years if at all. Think about children as individuals ready to learn not empty vessels to be filled up. What do children need to know e.g. calculation, money, reading, writing etc? How can we stimulate and nurture their natural desire to learn? Do we want a nation of automatons or a nation of thinkers?

Reorganise care for the elderly. Care homes should not be profit making organisations but homes where people can live out the remainder of their lives with respect.

Reorganise the benefits system. Not the soft targets like the sick and disabled. I know some people play the system but it's not the majority. Benefits should not be a life option. I'm not saying people should be left with no money but there were 734000 job vacancies in the UK in April 2015. I appreciate that not all these jobs would be suitable for everyone or in areas they could get to but surely there are people out there who could do some of them. I'm not looking through rose tinted glasses. I know it's much harder in some areas than others. If someone is unable to find work they should do a couple of days of voluntary work each week. There are lots of charities in need of help, lots of pensioners/disabled who need help with their gardens, lots of schools who need people to listen to children read or help with PE etc. I know it will cost money in the first place for DRBs but the benefits will outweigh the outlay.

These are just my first ideas. I know I haven't costed them but we seem to be able to find money for wars so there must be a sink fund somewhere that we can draw on.

A strong leader would be a good starting point Anya . There is no way I could have voted for Ed Milliband.

Just heard all four candidates are in Leamington...I'm off there now on a fact finding mission!

An equal understanding of the private and public sector would be another point for me. Neither is more important than the other.

I believe that all utilities should be publicly owned, but, in the 1980s I went to work for a public company. Having always worked in the private sector I was horrified at the waste of tax payers money. Something has to change if we go back to those days.

I think times have changed enough now to expect public enterprises to work in the same way as a private company except that prices would not be expected to generate profits for the investors. However any profit that might be made would go back to the exchequer.

I think your "Re-organise" word would work well vampirequeen. Many people do want to change the benefits system and want to see Labour prepared to face up the need for change to a system that suits the 21st century without pushing people into penury.

So to update my "view" of my Labour Party

* Living wage and a living pension.
* Accessible learning from birth to 22.
* Care, including medical care, free at the point of delivery from birth to death.
* Reorganise the benefits system.

Sorry my last sentence isn't clear. If a public enterprise made an unintentional profit then it should go into the exchequer.

Mine would be
A living wage
A decent affordable place to live
NHS care (medical and social) free of charge throughout life
An integrated Publicly owned transport system

Why shouldn't a public enterprise be expected to make a profit? And why should it go back into the public purse? But ought to be reinvested in that company.

If, for example, the railways were taken back into public ownership, they should be expected to be self sufficient. And that includes enough of a profit margin to replace rolling stock, update the rail network, maintain stations, etc..

Ditto Water Companies, Energy Companies and so on.

When the north eastern railway was in public hands after it was handed back because the private company could not make it work. it made a profit.
Just before the election it was handed over to Virgin, so they could make a profit.

It is all very well saying what we would hope for, but it must be paid for.
Assuming that we must address any debt what should the left do economically? In the end nothing is possible without having a rational economic plan

So perhaps one of the points should be something like:-
Economic stability through growth not austerity.

I am soooo glad that the left are now thinking about earning as well as spending money.
It will help save us from becoming like Greece.

That begs the question, where is the money to come from for growth? And exactly what kind of growth are we talking about?

Are taxes to be raised to finance public projects which will give employment?

What role will the private sector play in, for example house building?

How can we recontruct our manufacturing base?

Or re-engage the young unemployed?

Economic stability through growth I am never convinced works. Though I could well be wrong.
[Note to self, read a book about it].

I am talking of reintroducing Keynes to the debate.

People on a living wage - a proper one, not George's pretend one - will spend their money in this country, not save it.
They will spend it on food, goods, shoes, clothes, all of which can be made in this country. More purchasing means more manufacturing means more money going round the system.

House building will also bring a lot more money with it. It will also build self-respect in those that have been left at the bottom of the heap.

I would also like a Labour government to find a way to bridge the gap between the rich and poor by limiting the top pay to a multiple of the bottom wage, but I haven't yet worked out what that multiple should be.
Anyone know what it is in John Lewis?

I keep reintroducing JMK to the debate whitewave, at least on here, but very few people are actually interested in the economics.

Soontobe we were never going to be like Greece. We have our own currency and were in a very different place to them. It was just scare tactics on the Tories part.

Economic stability through growth I am never convinced works Soon, in sense there is no such thing as economic stability. You can have a growth economy and a no growth economy. Certainly some very clever economist have been talking about a no growth economy over recent years and whitewave's and my favourite Keynes talked about it way back when.

That said most of us are used to growth both of our companies and countries. The problem with no growth is that while you may exchange additional income for life-style - less hours, etc. - the economy could start to slip backwards.

I thought that whitewave meant things like putting a lot of money into construction and infrastructure, to give people work, kind of thing.

That would be to grow the economy Soon and is really very similar to a growing a company except that there seem to be more controls over what you can borrow, what you are going to invest it in and how you are going to pay it back if you are a company!

Borrowing per se is not necessarily a bad thing. If, for instance you take out a loan which you can afford to repay on you current earnings and which will pay for training which in turn increases your income that is a good thing. Or if you take out a loan which your company can afford and which will allow you to invest in machinery to bring down the cost of goods you are already selling at a profit that would be good too. In the same way, if a country borrows to build houses which provides jobs (so some of that money is returning to the exchequer) up-skills your labour force so they are available later for private companies to build more buildings while paying higher wages for the up-skilled labour force which mean higher levels of PAYE, additional corporation tax, etc. and more people with disposable income because the cost of housing comes down so they can spend in the economy generating more taxes and fewer benefits that is good too.

It's complex but a good government should be able to make it work. My worry is that I don't believe GO can add 2 + 2. Like many others I am fiscally conservative (note the small "c" ) so I want to know that if anyone is borrowing on my behalf they know what they are doing so I do understand why you feel as you do.

Green quantitative easing? The government prints money to give to companies to buy stuff for building council housing and sorting out environmental concerns like recycling and energy, rather than giving it to banks which use it to benefit shareholders.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/07/08/jeremy-corbyn-renames-green-qe-as-peoples-qe-but-thats-fine-by-me/

I should have been more precise. I didn't mean they shouldn't make enough money to keep the business up to date. I meant any excess over and above the needs of the company and reinvestment.