Can the Labour party re-invent Socialism ?

[counter_violent]

You probably don't consider the 81 executives at the BBC, who earn more than the Prime Minister, as over paid but I do. On the other end the minimum wage is too low to live on. It is even lower in the US and people are ruining their health with the anxiety and strain of having to work 2 jobs. Much better in my view to make wages more dependent on the company's results after paying dividends etc. and being fairer.

Barclays Bank used to pay their CEO £16m per year until he was caught doing illegal things. My local Barclays Bank is closing down at the moment and yet the company is doing well.
It is surely people who are important. I would like to see flexible wages reflecting the company's strength, with public sector wages tied to the county's performance. The yearly pay rise is a thing of the past imho.
Capitalism over burdens and under pays the many while over paying the elite few !

Within the free market system, you can do whatever you like, within reason. Makes me think you are far too concerned with what other people are doing and not enough about your own place within the system.

There is no equality for the masses and neither should there be. If we didn't have those individuals seeking higher goals, then the rest would have nothing to aspire to.

As long as govt provides a basic safety net for all and keeps the rest of it's activities to a minimum, then I'm all for it !!! How about you ?

 

[alexaherself]

An opinion poll in The Times today gives the proportion of the public "in favour of re-nationalising the railways" as 60%. (I was surprised: thought it would be a little higher. 60% is about the lowest poll figure I've seen recently, on this question).

It also gave the standard, second-class return train-fare to London from where I live as £247 (and as £69 pre-nationalisation). That must be the full price, allowing for rush-hour travel and booking a "standard, open return" - I've never paid that much: that fare's actually higher than most of the air-fares.

 

[hhiusa]

Within the free market system, you can do whatever you like, within reason. Makes me think you are far too concerned with what other people are doing and not enough about your own place within the system.

There is no equality for the masses and neither should there be. If we didn't have those individuals seeking higher goals, then the rest would have nothing to aspire to.

As long as govt provides a basic safety net for all and keeps the rest of it's activities to a minimum, then I'm all for it !!! How about you ?

I concur. However, I think the government should exist solely for its infrastructure i.e., (transportation system, legal system, etc.). I do not think it is the responsiblity of government to provide you with help financially. As long as you are not starving or unhealthy, I think the government has done its job.

 

[hhiusa]

An opinion poll in The Times today gives the proportion of the public "in favour of re-nationalising the railways" as 60%. (I was surprised: thought it would be a little higher. 60% is about the lowest poll figure I've seen recently, on this question).

It also gave the standard, second-class return train-fare to London from where I live as £247 (and as £69 pre-nationalisation). That must be the full price, allowing for rush-hour travel and booking a "standard, open return" - I've never paid that much: that fare's actually higher than most of the air-fares.

That is quite expensive. I could fly almost anywhere in the country for that price.

 

[0007]

That is quite expensive. I could fly round-trip from Los Angeles to New York for about that much.

The USA has always been a pioneer of economic and reliable air travel and has developed it such that fares are very reasonable even under a capitalist system! (Probably it's because of the capitalist system) They are very much assisted by the enormous size of the country which helps to make travel economic and in the early days internal services were very highly subsidised through the mail system contracts. The UK has always presented economic problems for internal air travel due to its much smaller size and relatively cheap, reliable competition from the railways. Pre-World War II the railways took the threat of air travel very seriously and had their own air services but they were never economic, very unreliable due to the weather and the aircraft were behind the USA in development. The UK political mind set (which probably not unreasonably reflects the electorate) is just not tuned in to air travel travel: look at the shenanigans over whether or not to increase capacity at Heathrow – meanwhile the rest of the world gets on and improves itself. As has been previously pointed out, on most domestic journeys air affords minimal, if any, overall time-saving compared to rail.

Until UK regards rail travel as an important social service which should be available at reasonable cost (not the goldplated HS2 version) there seems to be little prospect of improvement.

 

[Atilla]

The USA has always been a pioneer of economic and reliable air travel and has developed it such that fares are very reasonable even under a capitalist system! (Probably it's because of the capitalist system) They are very much assisted by the enormous size of the country which helps to make travel economic and in the early days internal services were very highly subsidised through the mail system contracts. The UK has always presented economic problems for internal air travel due to its much smaller size and relatively cheap, reliable competition from the railways. Pre-World War II the railways took the threat of air travel very seriously and had their own air services but they were never economic, very unreliable due to the weather and the aircraft were behind the USA in development. The UK political mind set (which probably not unreasonably reflects the electorate) is just not tuned in to air travel travel: look at the shenanigans over whether or not to increase capacity at Heathrow – meanwhile the rest of the world gets on and improves itself. As has been previously pointed out, on most domestic journeys air affords minimal, if any, overall time-saving compared to rail.

Until UK regards rail travel as an important social service which should be available at reasonable cost (not the goldplated HS2 version) there seems to be little prospect of improvement.

Agree with your post and would like to add rail travel is not just a social service, business needs an educated labour force who needs to get to work.

London weighting in wage contracts is specifically for that purpose.

Expecting people to work on minimum wage or less and service London's and Cities needs is simply not a living wage.

When earning 70K plus paying 5-8K on annual rail fares may not be a big deal.
If earning 25K then paying 5K and travelling over 1+ hours into work is a big deal.

It's the well trained skilled bodies who are choosing to leave London for a better life work balance.


Alternatively, cities need to expand horizontally, rather than vertically to provide working and living environments which are accessible.

 

[0007]

Agree with your post and would like to add rail travel is not just a social service, business needs an educated labour force who needs to get to work.

London weighting in wage contracts is specifically for that purpose.

Expecting people to work on minimum wage or less and service London's and Cities needs is simply not a living wage.

When earning 70K plus paying 5-8K on annual rail fares may not be a big deal.
If earning 25K then paying 5K and travelling over 1+ hours into work is a big deal.

It's the well trained skilled bodies who are choosing to leave London for a better life work balance.


Alternatively, cities need to expand horizontally, rather than vertically to provide working and living environments which are accessible.

Good points. The business and commuting aspect is a very important one and in my experience (as an ex London commuter) these passengers get a rough deal – and I was using one of the best lines. It was cheap and easy rail travel that helped revolutionise industry in this country during Victorian times but all we can think about now is knocking 20 minutes off the London to Manchester journey.

 

[Atilla]

Re: HS2 monies - I'd also be more inclined into investing in improving current rail network and building new adjoining motorways to support and get ready for self driving new technologies.

If speed is required between London / Manchester surely they could improve on flying or have smaller runways with smaller planes for frequent rotas.

 

[alexaherself]

If speed is required between London / Manchester surely they could improve on flying or have smaller runways with smaller planes for frequent rotas.

That probably takes us from the road/rail debate into the related "Heathrow runway debate", currently one of the biggest political hot potatoes there is ... "In the blue corner, may I introduce Boris and that nice Zach, and in the other blue corner we have almost all the rest of the Conservative party"?

 

[Mr. Charts]

New business opportunity:
Russia is littered with huge statues of Lenin which were taken down (although many still remain in St Petersburg and other places). If someone were to pick them up very cheaply and import them, cut off Lenin's head and replace it with Corbyn's they would make a fortune.
Please send all donations to the crowdfunding site http://www.jeremywillruleandpurge.com

 

[Mr. Charts]

Also the United Gulags of Siberia are tendering for custom for Comrade Corbyn's future needs.
Apparently they still have room for further "clients" to dig new and cosy permanent facilities.

 

[Atilla]

That probably takes us from the road/rail debate into the related "Heathrow runway debate", currently one of the biggest political hot potatoes there is ... "In the blue corner, may I introduce Boris and that nice Zach, and in the other blue corner we have almost all the rest of the Conservative party"?

Was thinking more City Airport than Heathrow, Stanstead or Gatwick. Needs to be accessible for the hop-on, hop-off

Moreover, in our modern era, blue chips have already started using video-conferencing between various offices. Why travel? Is a body really essential when modern technology will do.

Who want's to go to Birmingham or Manchester for a return one day trip these days? Some market research would be useful as to whether speed is required at all.

We really need to stop building on London and start thinking outside the box so to speak.

 

[Atilla]

Just seen this for extending road network and more importantly for me dedicated cycle lanes.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/10/rotterdam-plastic-roads-trial-netherlands

This road surface is much faster for bikes and covering 20m in one hour would become so much easier with new light road bikes or e-power bikes.

Would prefer to build a star-spoke type covered-cycle network above-road-tunnels into cities and totally re-engineer transport and access.

That is for all major-cities throughout UK for a fraction of the cost of HS2.

It really is crazy spending so much money - piping everything into and out of London.

 

[Pat494]

Not sure what road/rail networks have to do with labour especially, but
I do remember an interesting article on electric cars which can be " refuelled " as they travel by induction circuits buried in the road.
OK so where does all that energy requirement come from ? Barrages across estuaries maybe ?

 

[Pat494]

More Corbynism

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeremy Corbyn has called for the Queen’s powers to be weakened as he said that the Royal Prerogative should be subject to parliamentary veto.

In comments that were described as an “assault on the monarchy”, Mr Corbyn said that in future the Royal Prerogative should be subject to parliamentary vote and veto”.

Royal Prerogatives are a series of powers officially held by the Queen that have been passed to the government of the day. They enable decisions to be taken without the backing of, or consultation with, Parliament.

They range from the appointment and dismissal of ministers to the making of treaties and the accreditation of diplomats. They also allow a prime minister to go to war.

He said during a leadership hustings last week: “The royal prerogative should be subject to parliamentary vote and veto if necessary. The Queen hands her powers to the prime minister and he can then exercise them. It’s a very convenient way of bypassing parliament. Also, orders in council are a very convenient way of bypassing parliament.”


Sir Anthony Seldon, the historian, told LBC radio: “It's hard to know what would be left of the monarchy. The fact that Jeremy Corbyn is saying that would be seen as an assault on the monarchy. It would be crossing the Rubicon. He would be the first Labour leader who started talking about a reduction in the role of the monarchy. It would be very serious. Presumably he is saying it because he knows it will go down well with his supporters."

It came as Mr Corbyn was forced to defend comments he made about the death of Osama Bin Laden.

Mr Corbyn was criticised after footage emerged of him telling Iranian television that it was a "tragedy" that bin Laden was killed by the United States rather than being put on trial.


The Labour leadership frontrunner made the remarks shortly after the 2012 special forces raid on the Al-Qaeda chief's Pakistan compound in which he and four others were shot dead.

A spokesman for Mr Corbyn said that the remarks had been “taken completely out of context” and that he is "a total opponent of Al-Qaeda, all it stands for".

It is the latest in a series of past comments and associations that the veteran left-winger has been forced to defend since emerging as the surprise favourite to succeed Ed Miliband .

Mr Corbyn has been repeatedly condemned during the Labour leadership election for his links to extremists.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bin it

 

[Pat494]

Well there we have it - Corbyn - leader of the Opposition !
2 election defeats and they reach for the least likely candidate, in desperation !

Re-inventing Socialism ? No, just going back to the sad old seventies. strikes and all.

I blame in part David Cameron & Co. The arrogant right wingers being so obnoxious that they let through the extreme opposites. The next few years may well be spent on bridge building and apologising but I doubt they can see the extremists they have stupidly spawned.

 

[NVP]

Well there we have it - Corbyn - leader of the Opposition !
2 election defeats and they reach for the least likely candidate, in desperation !

Re-inventing Socialism ? No, just going back to the sad old seventies. strikes and all.

I blame in part David Cameron & Co. The arrogant right wingers being so obnoxious that they let through the extreme opposites. The next few years may well be spent on bridge building and apologising but I doubt they can see the extremists they have stupidly spawned.

conservatives will be celebrating all night :drunk::cheers:

 

[hhiusa]

Who says the UK is not socialist?

 

[0007]

Who says the UK is not socialist?

Well, certainly not the electorate – at the recent General Election anyway.

 

[Sneaky_T2W]

Is a Corbyn victory really that unrealistic in 2020? I am not so sure, five years is plenty of time for the economy to implode.