Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

[Silva]

People wth wealth already use private health companies for their home care. The policy will have mostly impacted families where the grandparent is the only homeowner.

 

[Untied]

Yeah like 'people with wealth should contribute to their home care' rather than relying on the tax payer - many of whom are cash-strapped - gets slammed as a dementia tax by Labour

Except that is actually a bad policy that runs contrary to the notion of socialised care

 

[Cheesy]

I get that. But hey TM tried to address the social care problem at the last election and DID target the older wealthier generation, and she was royally slammed for it.

She was slammed because she was unclear on the policy and continually made u-turns, arguing nothing was changing even though she was quite literally promoting a policy that involved changing things. And ultimately the Tories have reaped what they've sown in that regard by appealing to the elderly for so long. They coax their base into voting for them; Labour do the same.

 

[Honest John]

People wth wealth already use private health companies for their home care. The policy will have mostly impacted families where the grandparent is the only homeowner.

But their houses are usually sold off to pay for the private care. That is the point. And what was being proposed was not a total sale of the property. There was a limit. It's either something like that or it falls on the tax payer as a whole. In that case you'd have the situation where wealthy people were being funded by cash-strapped tax-payers. Please don't say it can be funded by raising the taxes of higher earners - that pot has been more than run dry by free university education and now bus passes.

 

[Silva]

you'd have the situation where wealthy people were being funded by cash-strapped tax-payers.

because the basic moral standpoint is that the elderly have already made their contribution to society.

which one is it

 

[ZupZup]

Yeah like 'people with wealth should contribute to their home care' rather than relying on the tax payer - many of whom are cash-strapped - gets slammed as a dementia tax by Labour

I was comparing the political reaction of two policies which are both subsidised travel for young people...

Social care for the elderly... if you'd like to show me a similar policies from Conservatives/Labour on that specific topic so we can look at the reactions to both? I'm all ears.

 

[nickm]

Maybe Corbyn found a few quid down the back of his sofa? Or has had ' a word' for a horse in the National tomorrow?

On a serious note, the metaphorical 'magic money tree's' do sort of exist in public finance, Government's can raise or re-allocate funds using all sorts of methods in addition to taxes (which is seemingly the only income-source ever discussed - as if every pound we spend has to come out of Joe Public's wallet)

I'm sure you know all of this anyway but probably just don't like Jezza very much!

No, I don't like Corbyn. He's a fecking politician, not Jesus.

Re the money tree thing. You can't look at these promises in isolation. Corbyn's very free with promising extra money to politically convenient cases (as are the Tories but his promises seem to be bigger)... it all adds up... and it's money that we don't really have - we still run a deficit, we have an enormous public debt that has to be financed, NHS, schools etc are all under pressure and there's Brexit to pay for.

 

[nickm]

because the basic moral standpoint is that the elderly have already made their contribution to society.

Have they really though? People say this but arguably they haven't paid enough, especially given (in general) unearned housing wealth and expensive medical bills that need to be paid.

The Tories actually got hammered for this in the election when they pointed this out.

 

[Lentwood]

No, I don't like Corbyn. He's a fecking politician, not Jesus.

Re the money tree thing. You can't look at these promises in isolation. Corbyn's very free with promising extra money to politically convenient cases (as are the Tories but his promises seem to be bigger)... it all adds up... and it's money that we don't really have - we still run a deficit, we have an enormous public debt that has to be financed, NHS, schools etc are all under pressure and there's Brexit to pay for.

That's fair enough, I don't care who/what people choose to support. I come on hear to chat about this stuff as opposed to Facebook/Twitter etc...because that just totally degenerates after a couple of comments

Corbyn does appear to be making lots of additional spending commitments, however, I would argue that they are in areas that we are likely to see a return on that investment, i.e. young people and tackling social issues

It goes back to my original point, if we are spending in the right areas then it actually saves or makes us money in the long-term. It also irks me that every headline I read is 'taxpayers this, taxpayers that...as if tax is the only source of income for Governments and Jeremy Corbyn will personally be nicking a fiver from all our wallets to piss up the wall on 'lazy Millenials'. (I'm too old to qualify for a bus or rail pass btw so nowt in it for me!)

 

[Sweet Square]

For the millionth time

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

I'm not saying older people are evil or even bad or anything - I'm just saying that many of them financially got a much better deal than this generation are getting when it comes to housing, jobs etc, and whereas we don't batter an eyelid at the many financial perks they receive even when they don't need any of them, attempts to give anything to younger voters are automatically cast off as 'bribes' and unnecessary handouts as opposed to Corbyn just trying to incentivise his core voter base in the same way the Tories try to keep their core base on their side with preferable policies, the primary one of course being Brexit which is driven by the older sectors of the population in spite of the fact many youngsters fear the lasting economic impact it'll have. One is seen as wise electoral policy; the other gets cast off as economic mismanagement.

It's a good job too because that would be very painful.

 

[esmufc07]

But their houses are usually sold off to pay for the private care. That is the point. And what was being proposed was not a total sale of the property. There was a limit. It's either something like that or it falls on the tax payer as a whole. In that case you'd have the situation where wealthy people were being funded by cash-strapped tax-payers. Please don't say it can be funded by raising the taxes of higher earners - that pot has been more than run dry by free university education and now bus passes.

Reversal in corporate tax cuts, and investing in an economy to help it grow.

 

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

And how's that going to be paid for? Not that the small details bother Corbyn much.

Growth in the economy - a virtuous circle of spending leading to growth leading to more tax receipts etc. Instead of the current vicious circle the other way round.

 

[11101]

Growth in the economy - a virtuous circle of spending leading to growth leading to more tax receipts etc. Instead of the current vicious circle the other way round.

Unchecked spending has never worked before so what's different this time.

 

[hobbers]

Unchecked spending has never worked before so what's different this time.

Home made jam and complete honesty.

 

[Cheesy]

Home made jam and complete honesty.

Also patronising opponents who complain but have no substance whatsoever.

 

[RedChip]

Bus Passes for U25s

As soon as a person pops up and says “how is that going to be paid for?” whatever opinion they might offer after that is almost certainly totally irrelevant

You CANNOT compare Government finances to your own finances in the sense that Macroeconomics is not ‘zero-sum’. It’s not like your household finances where you have a certain amount of money to allocate at the end of every month and a certain amount of outgoings to cover.

I think people imagine that whoever is in power is sat there looking at some bank statement thinking “hmmmm...want to give young people bus passes....have to cut something....hmmmm....OK let’s get rid of a few hospitals”

Doesn’t work that way. Think of each decision instead as an investment, not a cost. For example, what is the ROI in giving young people bus passes? More young people from low-income families can travel to work/college. Do I have to explain the benefits of that? Surely not.

What is the ROI in giving Colin, 65, retired from Wiltshire with a house worth £650K and a holiday home in Spain a bus pass? Next to nil.

When a Party announce a policy, ask yourself, “who is this policy intended to benefit, why, and what’s the benefit for Society as a whole”

Think this a tad patronising. I am no economist, but surely you do have to fund any investment, don't you? Otherwise, why bother with the budget.

 

[Razvan]

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/...-for-opposing-the-syria-strike-is-collapsing/

Were Bashar al-Assad to be found guilty, Corbyn then said, he should be told to ‘come in and destroy those weapons, as they did in 2013 and 2015’. Note he offers two dates: if weapons were destroyed in 2013 why should there have been the need to do anything in 2015? It’s also worth reprinting the United Nations assessment of the regularity of the chemical weapons attacks: suffice to say that having Assad agree to ‘destroy’ his chemical weapons in 2013 did not stop the litany of atrocities.

 

[Lentwood]

Think this a tad patronising. I am no economist, but surely you do have to fund any investment, don't you? Otherwise, why bother with the budget.

My point is two-fold

1. I’m fed up of headlines implying that Labours policies are going to hurt ordinary tax payers as if there are no other ways to raise revenue than taxation

2. As I say, if an expenditure in one area saves/creates money in another area, it’s a net positive

 

[Oscie]

No, I don't like Corbyn. He's a fecking politician, not Jesus.

It's strange how people are now 'othered' for disliking a mainstream politician. Odd times. It's something Trump and Corbyn supporters have in common, but each will refuse to see it, in that they see disagreement or dissent as some kind of threat to be attacked. Take this site for instance, full of disdain and criticism of leaders, as is healthy and expected. Criticise Corbyn and it's as if you've just kicked a dying child in the face.

 

[RedChip]

My point is two-fold

1. I’m fed up of headlines implying that Labours policies are going to hurt ordinary tax payers as if there are no other ways to raise revenue than taxation

2. As I say, if an expenditure in one area saves/creates money in another area, it’s a net positive

I do think the question of how a new policy is to be funded is a legitimate one; you can't just dismiss it. Either you cut some other service, increase taxes or borrow to 'invest'. The return on the investment will not be immediate.

 

[nickm]

I do think the question of how a new policy is to be funded is a legitimate one; you can't just dismiss it. Either you cut some other service, increase taxes or borrow to 'invest'. The return on the investment will not be immediate.

The other thing to bear in mind is the opportunity cost. Maybe giving under 25 years olds free bus travel generates positive ROI (but I'm not sure how you would prove it). But perhaps there's a better/higher ROI use for that money - like educating people. Even if you borrow the money (and therefore add to the already enormous national debt pile), it's not infinite and you have to make choices.

 

[Oscie]

25 seems an odd age. Same with the rail card thing, if you're at an age where you may well be in further education and/or not eligible for the full minimum wage then fine but why is a 26 year old less deserving or less financially in need of free/reduced travel than a 25 year old.

 

[Kentonio]

The other thing to bear in mind is the opportunity cost. Maybe giving under 25 years olds free bus travel generates positive ROI (but I'm not sure how you would prove it). But perhaps there's a better/higher ROI use for that money - like educating people. Even if you borrow the money (and therefore add to the already enormous national debt pile), it's not infinite and you have to make choices.

It's actually a very obvious positive benefit. Free local travel ensures that youngsters who are undergoing further education or just getting into work and have low incomes as a result are able to get to their place of work/study reliably and reduce the impact that transport costs have on their already extremely low budget. For a youngster on minimum wage or attending college, saving a fiver a day can have a massive effect on their quality of life.

 

[Oscie]

It's actually a very obvious positive benefit. Free local travel ensures that youngsters who are undergoing further education or just getting into work and have low incomes as a result are able to get to their place of work/study reliably and reduce the impact that transport costs have on their already extremely low budget. For a youngster on minimum wage or attending college, saving a fiver a day can have a massive effect on their quality of life.

Should there not then be a proviso that you have to either be in education or full-time work in order to qualify?

 

[Silva]

Should there not then be a proviso that you have to either be in education or full-time work in order to qualify?

Spoken like a true Tory. "But how do we use this to feck the unemployed"

 

[Oscie]

Spoken like a true Tory. "But how do we use this to feck the unemployed"

Are you 8? I had more grown up discussion about WWF in year 4

Your petulant reaction to anyone who questions a policy is hilarious.

 

[Silva]

Are you 8? I had more grown up discussion about WWF in year 4

Your petulant reaction to anyone who questions a policy is hilarious.

yes i am it's why my mind doesn't immediately question how to feck the poor

 

[Oscie]

yes i am it's why my mind doesn't immediately question how to feck the poor

Myself and another adult were talking about implementation of a policy.

"YOU'RE A TORY WHO FECKS THE POOR!"

It's comical your shouty angry Wetherspoonsman act

 

[Silva]

Myself and another adult were talking about implementation of a policy.

"YOU'RE A TORY WHO FECKS THE POOR!"

It's comical your shouty angry Wetherspoonsman act

aww, did I hurt your feelings?

 

[Smores]

Should there not then be a proviso that you have to either be in education or full-time work in order to qualify?

Why on earth would you bother? The administration of limiting this to employed would probably outweigh any savings.

 

[711]

I've worked in public transport for forty years and I'm strongly in favour of investment and support in providing a good transport system as a public service. Most people will need it at some time in their lives, and if not them then others they depend on will, hospital staff, employees, family, most of society somewhere along the line.

What I don't get is the need to target so much of the necessary subsidy on arbitrary age groups, and strangely decided ones at that. Lots of young people can ill afford transport to education, then again lots of 23 and 24 year-olds will actually have the most disposable income they'll see in decades. Similarly with the over-60/65s, you'd have to be a bit of a twat not to want to help those on state pension alone, but then again many who have a good pension and paid-for house have far more cash for leisure-spending than the average worker does.

I don't get why a 30/40/50 year-old on minimum wage should be paying full fares when others who are much better off get the full subsidy.

In general I'd prefer to see whatever subsidy the nation can afford to be used to create cheaper fares for everyone.

 

[Kentonio]

Should there not then be a proviso that you have to either be in education or full-time work in order to qualify?

Young people are often in the unemployed but searching, or bouncing between low paid or temporary job categories. Unemployed or irregularly employed people are probably the ones who need free local travel the most. It's not like a free bus pass is going to be some amazing gift to the lazy.

 

[Kentonio]

I don't get why a 30/40/50 year-old on minimum wage should be paying full fares when others who are much better off get the full subsidy.

In general I'd prefer to see whatever subsidy the nation can afford to be used to create cheaper fares for everyone.

Agreed in principle, but look how much abuse the idea gets when its just aimed at the young. Can't see it getting very far as a wider plan. The Daily Mail crowd would trip over themselves to shout it down as a socialist handout to the loafers.

 

[Red Defence]

Young people are often in the unemployed but searching, or bouncing between low paid or temporary job categories. Unemployed or irregularly employed people are probably the ones who need free local travel the most. It's not like a free bus pass is going to be some amazing gift to the lazy.

Correct, those are most definitely the people who need free local travel. When you’re in either of those categories you just cannot afford the cost of travel yet the unemployed have to visit the Jc every 2 weeks and many of them have to walk there and back again. No joke in our climate.

 

[711]

Young people are often in the unemployed but searching, or bouncing between low paid or temporary job categories. Unemployed or irregularly employed people are probably the ones who need free local travel the most. It's not like a free bus pass is going to be some amazing gift to the lazy.

The irregularly employed, more often than not poorly paid as well, form a hefty chunk of society, often ignored by both the left and right in politics. The thing is, very much part of my earlier post, it contains people of all age groups.

 

[Smores]

The irregularly employed, more often than not poorly paid as well, form a hefty chunk of society, often ignored by both the left and right in politics. The thing is, very much part of my earlier post, it contains people of all age groups.

The more complex you make eligibility the harder and more costly, age is a very easy factor to administer.

Besides, its politically easier to sell a support for those just starting out especially when people have children they support than it is for those in need. That's just the sad state of this proud Daily Mail nation.

 

[Kentonio]

Correct, those are most definitely the people who need free local travel. When you’re in either of those categories you just cannot afford the cost of travel yet the unemployed have to visit the Jc every 2 weeks and many of them have to walk there and back again. No joke in our climate.

It's getting bloody expensive too. I don't usually use buses when I go back the UK, but I went on one recently and a fare that ten years ago used to be about £1-1.25 now costs about £3-3.50. That's one way between my folks village and the town 3 miles away. So anyone unemployed in the village is going to have to find £6-7 every time they have to go for a JSA interview, or accept a job interview. Not exactly easy if you're living on £73.10 a week.

 

[Silva]

I've worked in public transport for forty years and I'm strongly in favour of investment and support in providing a good transport system as a public service. Most people will need it at some time in their lives, and if not them then others they depend on will, hospital staff, employees, family, most of society somewhere along the line.

What I don't get is the need to target so much of the necessary subsidy on arbitrary age groups, and strangely decided ones at that. Lots of young people can ill afford transport to education, then again lots of 23 and 24 year-olds will actually have the most disposable income they'll see in decades. Similarly with the over-60/65s, you'd have to be a bit of a twat not to want to help those on state pension alone, but then again many who have a good pension and paid-for house have far more cash for leisure-spending than the average worker does.

I don't get why a 30/40/50 year-old on minimum wage should be paying full fares when others who are much better off get the full subsidy.

In general I'd prefer to see whatever subsidy the nation can afford to be used to create cheaper fares for everyone.

Aside from helping people who struggle with transport costs, if local bus services were made free for everyone it would significantly lower the towns pollution, so everyone regardless of whether they live a minute away from work or the other side of town would have cleaner air and less traffic. It's good for people from every possible angle.

 

[711]

Aside from helping people who struggle with transport costs, if local bus services were made free for everyone it would significantly lower the towns pollution, so everyone regardless of whether they live a minute away from work or the other side of town would have cleaner air and less traffic. It's good for people from every possible angle.

True. A good and affordable public transport system brings huge benefits all round.