Corbyn and Momentum

Whitewave, I would like to see Jennie Formby get elected to the General Secretary position. I have seen her speak as she came along to a large week long Unite Union industrial Safety course several of us from my company where doing the tuition for.

She addressed all those attending the course for about 45 minute's ranging over the matters such as the NHS, the role of trade unions in Britain and getting more women involved in the Labour movement. I found her a great speaker and highly committed to the above subjects.

The only thing that may stop her being elected would be if other unions do not support her for fear of Unite gaining even greater influence in at the highest levels of the Labour party.

I believe Lansmans invitation to grassroots members to stand for the position is to draw more support to himself, as realistically whoever is elected will have to be an existing member of the National Executive stand any chance I feel

I think tbh after reading a bit, Lansman is primarily standing because in the past the post has largely been a shoe-in and in keeping with the push towards greater democracy, he is keen for this greater democracy to happen. Momentum has issued a national invitation for any labour members who think they may qualify to consider going for the post.

Perhaps how the Labour party will approach the problems within the NHS along the other matters will become clear in the coming weeks following the election of the new general secretary. The position has always been regarded as one of the most influential in the party being that it is the major link between the National Executive, the Parliamentary Labour party and the wider Labour movement in the country.

The General Secretary is also responsible for employing staff, overseeing campaign and media strategies, running the Party's organisation, constitutional and policy committees and organising the Party Conference. The post entails heading up a staff of over 200 employed between London and Tyneside.

The post has become vacant following the resignation of Ian McNicol one of the last few Blairite people still holding a high status office in the party. Jennie Formby a senior organizer in the Unite Union and responsible for that unions political ambitions has the support of Jeremy Corbyn as McNicols replacement, but Jon Lansman has now stated he will stand for election against her.

Jennie Formby is still favourite to gain the position and Is well known for her strong support for the NHS and care services which she believes need extensive extra funding by way of reforming National Insurance contributions. Formby is also a strong supporter of the immediate recind of the trade union legislation brought forward by the Thatcher government (with the exception of ballots prior to industrial action) on a Labour government taking office.

Jon Lansman is obviously also a strong supporter of the NHS, but also wishes to see even more grass root involvement in decision making. However, it is believed that many on the National Executive feel that bringing even more grass roots involvement to the Labour decision making process would incur far too much bureaucracy.

Interesting times indeed.

I so agree Wally , he is a communist

This thread is supposed to be a about Lansman and he has stated that he wants all Labour MPs to have to go through reselection. It's quite obvious why they would be replaced by candidates of the extreme left. Lansman is not an ex Communist he still is a Communist and will continue to try to move the party to the hard left. I and I don't wish to be rude to anyone call it the ostrich syndrome where people think it'll go away. Please read the history of the man he's a committed Communist.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Yes that is definately an argument worth thinking about

"And, as a matter of fact, that spending commitment to the NHS is about redistribution; it is about the creation of equality; it is about overcoming disadvantage; it is about equal access for all, and it is about making available to all what would otherwise only be available to some (as the USA proves). And yet, the form of hypothecation that is being chosen achieves the exact opposite result. Those who can already afford healthcare, come what may, will not suffer any significant burden as a result of this additional hypothecated tax and yet those to whom income and wealth should be redistributed will bear additional costs right down to, and including, those who might not even pay income tax. Nothing about that makes micro economic sense, or sense in the context of any form of social justice."

Good paragraph here.

I have never understood why people who have above a certain income do not pay NI on the higher pay.
It doesn't make sense to me.
People on low pay have to pay a greater proportion of their wages in NI contributions when they are least able to afford it.
Surely NI is a pot for everybody, not an individual insurance.

That certainly looks like an interesting article Jen; thanks for the link. I will re-read later but I feel a bit alarmed that, in reply to a comment, and a reasoned one about NI,Murphy says "This is all a legacy of the 1940s that needs sweeping away".

I need to read argument for an hypothecated tax too in order to make aid opinion making. There may be good reason for updating the way that we do some on the amazing initiatives of the 1940 but I blanche at wholeheartedly sweeping them away.

If people were asked to pay extra tax for the NHS i doubt all will be willing

I am not sure you get a choice on which taxes you pay Annie, but maybe your experience has been different to mine.

We treat everyone because treating everyone's condition seems like a waste of money to someone. It would be no different to now. We pay NI for everyone's working life needs. I have not seen people withdrawing from NI because they are judgemental about their neighbours need. Vocal, yes, but they still pay their taxes.

As for the sort of conditions you mention, I feel quite ashamed of the lack of education that makes some people see these needs in the way that they do. However, I, personally, would include Public Health as part of a triumvirate.

Public health is defined as the science of protecting the safety and improving the health of communities through education, policy making and research for disease and injury prevention.

Spend money in this area and it will save money further along when it comes to the NHS. That is the reason - other than humanitarian ones - for including Social Care as the third leg too.

It's not just individuals that avoid/evade tax.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2018/01/23/was-there-corruption-at-the-heart-of-this-government-to-assist-tax-evasion/

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2018/01/20/the-last-thing-the-nhs-needs-is-a-hypothecated-tax-labour-please-note/

If people were asked to pay extra tax for the NHS i doubt all will be willing. We hear - why should the NHS treat smokers, cosmetic surgery, IVF, alcoholics, drug addicts etc, and this would be said if asked to pay extra.

Road tax was ring fenced for the for the roads but look what happened there.

Agreed Wally the reselection of MP’s is coming.

Getting money from any tax dodgers is going to be very difficult, it’s not just a matter of going after them, they already do that.

I think most people would be willing to pay a little more for the NHS in theory but would they if it came to it? Talking about the public here, not posters on this thread.
Social care needs more funding and so does mental health.

There must be a vast number of very rich in this country if the tax they allegedly dodge paying can fund the NHS, given this was £116.4 billion in 2016

Lansman has openly stated that he is in favour of all Labour MPs having to submit to reselection. What on earth does anybody think the reason for that is then. Please tell me because some on this thread refuse point blank to see it.

Agreed, but easier said than done.

I would pay an extra tax for the NHS willingly.

Any government can put tax rates up. This government doesn't want to. You don't need NI for pensioners as many pay tax anyway.

The easiest way to fund the NHS is to stop rich people avoiding/evading tax.

I suggested that but other posters said it would be difficult to administer and that the NHS is funded from general taxation in the main anyway.
As pensioners don't pay NI would there be more resistance to an NI style tax being introduced to them and, if applied to all taxpayers through PAYE, would people resist it as a third form of taxation?
Increasing general taxation would be easier but then it would also be easy for the increase to be lost in the general pot and not go to the NHS and social care budget.

A reduced form of NI to be introduced for pensioners on a sliding scale according to income could be the answer.

About low pay.
Do you really think we should be subsidising supermarkets like this?
The one thing it doesn't tell us is the profits that each supermarket gets.

You could use an NI style tax Jalima - so that it could be ring fenced. It would be a separate item then and a party could say they would either raise or bring it down.

Perhaps an overall 2p on income tax then, but only as long as it was ringfenced for the NHS.

Look at how much is raised in vehicle licence tax, fuel duty, tolls etc and how little of that is spent on the roads and it could be a worry that the money would not go where it was needed.