Corbyn's weekly message

Tory rewriting of boundaries

I sure am glad I'm a first class citizen so am able to get the full wage. o.0

"The National Living Wage will be £7.20 an hour from April for workers aged 25 and over, rising to £9 by 2020.

The minimum wage will continue to function as before for those under 25.

Workers aged between 18 and 20 are currently entitled to at least £5.30 per hour while 16 and 17-year-olds have a minimum wage of £3.87 an hour.

Apprentices aged 16 to 18 and those in the first year of their apprenticeships have a minimum wage of £3.30 an hour."
-BBC article

First check rent prices, then take into account zero hour contracts.  It's a sad time to be a citizen of the UK, although, at least its better than a lot of other places. Saying it is better for us than other places is not a reason to just be content and expect more... people don't say that that is how you get to places in work, or education, and the same applies for the government. To make a difference you have to actively request it, and also, importantly, vote. Politicians are going to ignore us younger people until we can organise as a bloc of voters who can damage a party which doesn't vote for us. I am sick and tired of feeling unspoken for, the only politician who really is saying something for us, is Corbyn. Rent controls (mostly younger people are renting), actually affordable housing and council housing which predominately younger people will be using. etc. People, please can we get moving and actually make a difference. Please help the young people around you to care about politics, because it really is affecting them, right now.

This is where Momentum comes in, and I have a good feeling about it, but I'm not fully in touch because of my avoidance of social media. The real way to win support is to go out and talk and convince people with good arguments on ALL issues which they may bring up. Even if you don't think you have brought them round, its important they hear the argument and they may just ponder your impassioned plea later, on the bus to work, in the shower, or wherever.  A constant turn around isn't needed, just the other side of the argument which the most vocal and widespread media channels aren't giving. Its something we can learn from the SNPs campaign in Scotland, and it may be important in the EU In/Out campaigns, if you are that way inclined. We need to invigorate people, I think firstly non-voters, and then afterwards those who did not vote Labour.

Sorry about the rant! Anyway, get registered to vote, so the Tory rewriting of boundaries doesn't affect you adversely (hopefully!) and they have to take you and your vote potential into account.

Not great when you get a simple judgement so wrong George...

"It comes down to a very simple judgement, do you think our system is too expensive, do you think we should move to a higher wage lower welfare economy "
George Osbourne 2015/10

Simply, the reason for cutting tax credits does not boil down to this George.

Argument 1 -  they are too hard too fast. If you will only bring up the 'National Living Wage' in parts... presumably to not shock businesses, why not show the same respect to normal working people?

Argument 2 - for the economic arguments why austerity isn't necessary to cut the deficit flick through this blog:  But generally, if you borrow to invest and your return is higher than the costs due to that borrowing, that equals getting a strong economy and then actually running a surplus..

Argument 3 - Politically/socially - the fact they said they wouldn't cut these, the fact it may force people out of jobs onto benefits again, and in poverty again, not to mention the expected number of children they are pushing back into poverty, when they said they care about social mobility and keeping children in the classroom because this education is a major factor in opportunities later.

The charter and some notes

Why Labour voted against George Osbourne's charter:

"1. It commits every government to running a budget surplus in normal times from 2019 onwards. However since 2010, Osborne has missed his own deficit targets and changing the law won't help him to do any better."  << It is true that targets haven't been working, and it is also comprehendible that the targets aren't being reached quicker because of stifled government investment. The US has had a QE policy, giving more money to be lended out for investment and their recovery seems less fragile than ours which seems to be teetering waiting to swallow itself back up again. Just look at job losses in the North, employment falling in the North East where desperately investment is needed. The government consistently says that they don't want to borrow, and compare it to a microeconomic level household money cycle which it is not, but for instance, to put it in this way which they might understand: if you spend more than you can afford (or a company pays on your behalf) by borrowing so you can train a skill for a better job, or get a car which enables you to get to a better job, then over time you will recoup the costs, or the company which paid for you to train will benefit from better output. It isnt rocket science. And anyway, George is willing to miss targets on the deficit if it is in the form of tax breaks for the rich.

2. Effectively it is a big political stunt from George Osborne so that he has an excuse to keep making ideologically-driven cuts.  << They are ideological, as we can tell by the above economic arguments against them and the fact the chancellor is choosing to cut welfare rather than tax higher earners more and introduce a Tobin tax, etc.

3. But it's a dangerous stunt because if the Charter is followed to the letter it binds the hands of future governments, making it illegal to borrow money for investment in infrastructure or housing even at times when investment would lead to faster economic growth.  << we may yet regret it. It depends on what are 'normal times'... could the government invest in a bailout for the steel industry for example? It will become an excuse not to interfere, even where state interference may be the best option. This is the crux of the ideology in the cuts and the bill which passed: 'government should be as light handed as possible'. Its an ideology seen in some economic spheres based entirely on impossible assumptions of free markets and government/market failure. The best simple examples in microeconomics - social costs (climate change for an example) which are not accounted for by individuals/companies, and monopolies, oligopolies, natural monopolies (railways for example).

4. In fact, the best way to reduce the deficit now is to invest to grow our economy. It’s for this reason that most economists disagreed with George Osborne's cuts  << see above, and note even the IMF have said the cuts are too much.

5. It could also force a government to keep making cuts, irrespective of the impact they have on public services and working families.  << this is the role of government too. The Conservatives claim they are the only choice because of the economy - but there are choices on this, and they are not doing a great job on the rest of their responsibilities. Note the tax credit cuts they misled everyone about, saying they wouldn't do what they are now doing. Look at Redcar and the steel industry crisis...

A final note from Labour's McDonnell:

"It is crucial that we reduce the deficit, and Labour takes this mission seriously, but it must never be on the backs of the most vulnerable, or at the cost of the key public services we all rely on.
"
They are not deficit deniers, but the Tories are leading their assault on the poor full throttle, with Boris Johnson trying to reign it in (albeit with words not actions). 

The Worker's Party?

not all of them...

More examples to follow...