Sensible Discussion on Labour Leadership hopefuls MK 2

Grandad

You did not provide names on either the last thread or this one so it is hard to believe anybody who makes the accusation.

Feb 20th on this thread your answer to the question when I asked again who are the MP's being accused of ' resigning the whip' if Long Bailey became leader was -

' POGS, in regard to your post @10:21 today, several Red Top newspapers have carried the reports of Labour MPs resigning should Long-Bailey be elected as Labour leader. However, no names have been mentioned, but obviously, the press has been briefed by someone, and many within the movement will have names come to mind based on passed troubles caused in the Parliamentary party. '
--

That is my point, weeks of this story being repeated , again recently, there still remains no factual evidence to confirm it. Possibly it was/is gossip or the Long Bailey campaign team attempting to garner votes, who knows.

As for your saying -

' I will sum up my thoughts on those MPs in one word, "BAST*RDS.'

I might agree with you but who are they?

Well, POGS, I am not about to go back through the last thread to find those names. I believe it was the normal, "undermining troublemakers" in the Parliamentary Labour Party that made those threats.

However, if you do not wish to believe what I and the media have stated and Len McCluskey has so vehemently condemned, so be it.

They now seem to have gone very quiet on the issue, perhaps in the realisation of what they may well have brought about.

I will sum up my thoughts on those MPs in one word, "BAST*RDS.

Grandad

No you did not provide names on the other thread, I had a look as I thought I might need to apologise to you. I cannot help but think there will still be no names coming forth.

In your link there is no mention of any MP's being named but
it does say in your link however :-

On Radio 5 Live's Piennar's Politics show this morning, he said: "If you want to give me some names then we can debate that with them.
--

I have to wonder if this is a genuine story or various people, commentators, those with an agenda, repeating gossip as they cannot ' name names'.

Maybe it's another Long Bailey campaign team attempt to garner votes for their preferred Leader?

Galaxy in regard to your post @20:44 today, I believe that the trades unions are the only viable organisation(s) on the left of British politics who could set up and maintain a new political party.

Yes, many have tried and failed in the past when moving out of the Labour Party by way of lacking the resources necessary to successfully bring a new left-leaning plausible party into long term being.

The trades unions through the TUC would certainly not lack those resources, and like many, I now believe that this Parliamentary Labour Party is now so divided that it requires totally replacing in the interests of balance in British politics.

I am not a lib dem supporter and I too have grave doubts about that proposition. Starting a new political party even with union support is almost impossible.

growstuff, perhaps I am as deluded as those that supported the Liberal Democrats at the last General Election in thinking they could win.

Now, what was it they won, eleven seats in total?

I think that no members of the Labour party or affiliate members need take advise from Lib Dem supporters on any matter based on the above happening.

POGS, in regard to the MPs that are threatening to leave the Labour party if Rebbeca Long-Bailey is elected as leader, I believe the names were spoken of in the now defunct previous theead on this topic.

However, here in the below link is what Len McCluskey has stated to those MPs, and it is obvious that he is coming under pressure from the activists within Unite in regard to the behaviour of those MPs whose political Levy subscriptions are paid in support of.

Never been known previously for McCluskey to be so blunt on any matter I believe.

Link begins here:-
www.scotsman.com/news/politics/unite-boss-says-clear-out-now-labour-mps-threatening-quit-if-rebecca-long-bailey-becomes-leader-1396080

My opinion is that you are deluded if you think that 15 million people (or thereabouts) would vote for a political party based on the TUC Grandad.

The Labour Party has always been a much broader grouping than a trades union pressure group.

Galaxy, perhaps if a complete affiliation break is made between the trades unions and this excuse for an organised political party, that will bring forward a credible opposition party from within the TUC.

In that, that this Labour Party should never have been allowed the autonomy it was given after it was born out of the trades unions all those years ago.

Grandad

We will have to differ on this one, I see it totally as left / right factions and mentioned the use of terminologies such as ' Tory Light', ' Traitors', ' Blairites' which are only used to push the point they are not of the Corbyn/Momentum faction.

You said:-

'Without a doubt what shattered the little respect that affiliated activists retained for the Parliamentary Party was finally lost when a number of Labour MPs stated that should Rebecca Long-Bailey win the leadership election they would resign the Labour whip and sit as independent MPs in Parliament.'
-

You have said this before but I don' t know of any MP who has stated they would resign the Labour Whip if Long Bailey wins.

I am not arguing the point but I will ask you again ' who are they '? I apologise if you have answered that question which I have asked you before and I missed your reply. I genuinely want to understand this allegation which is very interesting and knowing their names is part of the ability to understand.

Its quite difficult to have effective democracy without a credible opposition.

Democracy is a much maligned and misunderstood concept IMO.

POGS in regard to your post @13:12 today, whatever positions the members of momentum or affiliated activists from the trade unions have achieved in the Labour Party they have been elected to those positions as per the rules and constitution drawn up by the Labour Party itself.

Therefore, there has been no "takeover" of the party as you state in your above-mentioned post, for if the majority in any of the ballots had not wished to see those persons in those positions they obviously would not have been elected.

I would also strongly defend my statement in an earlier post in his thread that the present problems in regard to the relationship between the trade unions and the Parliamentary Labour Party are not born out of any part of a left v right battle.

Without a doubt what shattered the little respect that affiliated activists retained for the Parliamentary Party was finally lost when a number of Labour MPs stated that should Rebecca Long-Bailey win the leadership election they would resign the Labour whip and sit as independent MPs in Parliament.

Therefore the above is not about left v right in the Parliamentary Party, it is about accepting the basic democracy that will be exercised by hundreds of thousands of Party members and affiliated members in this leadership election.

In the above, is it any wonder that many shop-floor trade union activists are now feeling that the affiliation between their organisations and this existing Labour Party has now "run its course" and their member's political levy could well be better expended on a new or totally reorganised political body.

Accepting basic democracy is most definitely what it is all about.

I read on Labour List there is a delay in ballot papers reaching
the party members who joined when the leadership election was announced

A bit of a hoo ha going on over the delay in ballot papers being received by members isn't there.

Lisa Nandy, has written to General Secretary Jenny Formby demanding to know why so many members are yet to receive ballot papers.

Whether it be good intent or bad behind the problem it will obviously give cause for concern.

Government 'debt' mostly takes the form of bonds and gilts. These are people's savings vehicles. Money withdrawn from the economy for the present but potentially to be spent and returned to the government by way of taxes. The costs of servicing the interest payable on bonds is currently negligible. In Germany people are buying bonds with a negative interest rate; but they are a safe place to save because savers are guaranteed to get their money back.

The only money in the economy which doesn't eventually end up back in 'government coffers' is savings and the 'black economy'. and, of course, the stuff that is squirrelled off into overseas tax havens. Of course, if it comes back to be spent in the UK it will be taxed in the usual way through sales taxation.

But, for our purposes; we who live in the 'real' economy, government spending is more than desirable as it circulates in the economy and stimulates small business growth; the businesses where people spend their wages. It also benefits larger business through government procurement as everything used by publicly funded institutions, schools, hospitals, police etc. has to be bought from private enterprises.

I do not understand how people can't understand this...

Cunco You have to look a bit deeper than just 'money supply'. Many economists would argue that what has been taught in Unis is outdated or mistaken. I would absolutely agree that 'money' is a very complex issue, particularly when it comes to foreign exchange and involves credit ratings etc. Basically, it seems to me to be a big confidence trick

However, Maizie is right. Taxes don't fund government spending. The UK government, as an issuer of a sovereign currency, can literally print as much money as it likes. Most of the money will return to the Treasury, unless it's squirreled overseas in offshore accounts and/or imports exceed exports. When sterling is weak and interest rates are low, it's a good time to issue money because imports are more expensive and are likely to decrease, therefore less money is likely to be spent on imports and the money paid back to investors is low. Some private individuals get rich on public debt.

I believe you're right Cunco. The government's debt is increasing every day. Somebody told me about a website, where you can see it mounting up in real time, but I can't find it.

I think the text book term for taxes on issues such as pollution is "taxes on negative externalities", which are intended to make consumers/producers pay the full social cost of the good.

Without economic growth, governments are faced with the inevitability of redistributing existing wealth, which most of them don't like.

I agree, by the way, that taxation alone has not funded government spending which is why we have a high level of government debt. From memory, it has increased under Conservative governments over the last decade. I may be wrong but I seem to remember that government spending, relative to GDP, was higher than 2008 for several of those years, maybe, only recently dropping slightly below.

If I am wrong, no doubt I will soon be put right.

Anniebach

Indeed, after we had more than our fair share of cross words and just to remind some posters you were once pro Corbyn but opinions can shift.

The economics I learned at university put the money supply at the heart of controlling inflation. For an explanation of how money works, therefore, I doubt whether a single source will suffice. It was a raging debate through the 1960's to 1980's.

The challenge of switching from a Consumer Society to an Conservation Society is not just about tax and subsidy. It would involve some industries running down or disappearing and people accepting a life using fewer resources, possibly through rationing. Governments might have to manage in a world where economic growth is not a given. It is probably common ground that managing an economy, and indeed a society, is easier when it is growing.

There we have a problem, it is the Taxation of the consumer society that pays for all the services that we rely on.

You illustrate an even bigger problem, David because, contrary to the belief carefully fostered by tory governments in order to justify slashing public spending, TAXATION DOES NOT FUND SPENDING

Properly speaking, taxation should control inflation. Government can issue as much money as it likes. It taxes to ensure that there is not too much money circulating in the economy, which would cause inflation.

This is an explanation of how money actually 'works'. It's worth exploring and considering.

gimms.org.uk/mmtbasics/

Yes POGS and I said so shortly after Corbyn became leader,

Grandad

You have for a while on GN stated your opinion that there is a distinct possibility the Unions may separate/withdraw funding from the Parliamentary Labour Party .
You said a few posts up :-

" To clarify my earlier post, I feel that the trade unions through their rank and file activists are evermore believing that this Labour party which their political levy subscriptions almost totally support is no longer capable of supporting their memberships wider ambitions.

In the above, it is not a question of left v right, but one of a Parliamentary Labour party that is so divided within itself that it cannot any longer serve those who have totally committed to supporting it for over one hundred years"
---

Indeed over many threads posters such as yourself and many Corbyn backing MP' s have spoken bitterly (putting it politely) about Labour MP' s who were deemed as not following the Corbyn/Momentum/ NEC/Unions line. Whether it was their candid opinions over the anti-semitism issues, a problem with the Corbyn/Momentum far left inner circle that took over the running of the party etc. etc. they were presumed to be ' Tory Light', ' Blairites ', ' Traitors '.

So I don't see how it can be nothing short of a ' question of left v right ' within the Labour Party that may well be the cause of a 'split ' in Labour, which was by the way mooted shortly after the Jeremy for Leader/Momentum Labour Party was formed years ago.

' IF ' and I stress ' IF ' the Unions do withhold finances and reorganise the Labour Party in it's eye then I think that was possibly a goal from the start and this is the time for it's culmination.

Grandad1943 Your number for the Trade Union membership is basically the same as mine; and my comment that a new far Left party would be a political force to be reckoned with hardly equates to dismissing it.

The present situation is so volatile, I would not rule anything out. The UK stock market now down about 20% in a couple of months (6% again today) amid concerns of company collapses and deep recession while climate change and Brexit negotiations make predictions more than tricky. Perhaps we will fast-backward past the 1970's to the 1930's, in which case, who knows, the ghost of Corbyn and McDonnell may rise again.