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...

Osbourne gets his 'vacuous and irrelevant' budget responsibility bill through

Osbourne's bill passed this evening.
A similar bill he derided when Labour introduced one in 2010.
Strangling investment and cutting back the government. Let's watch it unravel before their eyes, but it may well get tough for people first. Worrying that a lot of Economists wouldn't endorse the bill.  Its important to note that the Tories want to put through their bills through no matter what the terrible effects on working people's lives. Here they are laughing at our problems:
Laughing at the housing crisis
Laughing at making people not as well off as them, even worse off

Are they the working people's party?

According to BBC around 20 Labour MPs abstained, and I hope they are appropriately punished by the Labour Leadership. They don't represent the membership, and don't deserve to have the privelidge of representing us or their constituents.

The Right Answer

McDonnell made the right choice yesterday and I am excited for today's PMQs

The quicker we see reform to give party members more voice on policy the better.

Cameron Shamed by Corbyn and Gove

CAMERON SHAMED INTO U-TURN ON SAUDI DEAL

Corbyn said it, and eventually Cameron was shamed into admitting it, even if it took Gove to push it...

Wolfie's gonna eat ya

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/living-wage-not-being-paid-workers-proportion-falls-a6690451.html

"Mr Cameron effectively ruled out cutting the benefit before the election, telling a voters Question time that he "rejected" proposals to cut tax credits and did not want to do so. "

Would you trust the Tories again?

very interesting article on refugee/migrant definitions

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/it-makes-no-sense-to-separate-refugees-from-economic-migrants-a6685911.html
Highly recommend, been good to read some interesting analysis from the independent recently. much better than most UK news feeds Ive been checking too.

David Hameron Assault on Poverty

LOL

Jane Merrick Tweet

Reply to a Tweet

Tweet Text

Jane Merrick @janemerrick23 

Labour's gigantic problem: why did I, from a Liverpool comp, who voted for Blair & never voted Tory, agree nearly every word of PM's speech?

22m ago

The problem Jane, is that you agree but the Conservatives won't deliver what they are saying which you agree with. It'll become clearer and clearer over time up until 2020 elections..

Hameron Cameron and the Human Rights debacle in Saudi

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/who-beheads-more-people-isis-or-the-government-of-saudi-arabia--xy1pn8xX4x

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-attempts-to-defend-squalid-deal-with-saudi-arabia-in-excruciating-interview-with-jon-a6684066.html

http://deceptioninhighplaces.com/the-ministry-of-defence-and-detecting-bribery-in-saudi-arms-deals/

Look who doesn't care about human rights... And they not be our human rights yet (to be cynical), but they may be our human rights they don't care about soon. Hypocritical - He says he doesn't want dirty money in the UK? He gets that from the Saudis and the shell companies which he has failed to prevent being used to put laundered money through to unknown ultimate beneficiaries.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34445201

Who speaks out?
http://jeremycorbyn.org.uk/articles/question-on-corruption-in-the-arms-trade/

Corbyn Speaks to 3x the number of people in Manchester Cameron does (in a way)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-gatecrashes-tory-party-6580114

Further to the previous posts I made speaking of the Tory Conference 'Ring if Steel'. Been heartening to hear that the Tories at some fringe meetings could overwhelmingly here the protesters, showing them that they hadnt managed to mislead everyone in Manchester and the North. Then Theresa May came out and showed the nasty party Right, and Jeremy Hunt made spurious comments on 'working hard' like Chinese and Americans... When on a lot of calculations it is actually French and Germans who are more productive than us: getting more done in the same given time or less. To base a 'cultural sign' on nonsense hours worked; i.e. tax credit cuts, is a crime when it hurts the poorest and least able.

Their cheap rhetoric is painfully under evidenced or totally counter to evidence. Is it patriotic to say we should be like other countries, when your evidence doesnt even add up? I think not. I don't care about patriotism, but if you do, Corbyn is more the patriot!

Guns

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34450841

Absolutely losing sympathy for Americans who just need to learn from the stats that guns are killing them. They're ridiculous...

The Right Kind of Response to Theresa May's Nonsense Speech Today

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-biggest-threat-to-social-cohesion-isnt-mass-immigration-its-tories-like-theresa-may-a6682026.html

Just take a read, quite enlightening about the numbers and the lack of strain on the NHS by immigrants, among other things

Osbourne's False Devolution Plan

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34445311

So devolving business rates to the councils sounds great. But it is not true autonomy at all, if you can lower rates (an intention to see a race to the bottom between councils perhaps?) but cannot raise them, except under special conditions. So you need to have a Mayor appointed, and on top of that it is restricted to 2%... and then, only if businesses agree. So you leave councils in need of cash HELD TO RANSOM by their businesses, and not their wider population. They may no even be able to delivery key services and want to raise business rates.. but if the businesses don't see anything in it for them (short termism ahem..) why would they back it?

TRUE devolution would see full autonomy on this. It should be rejected and an amendment requested to receive absolute autonomy to actually raise revenue where the government doesn't have the balls to risk doing it in a way that doesn't take money from the less advantaged in society.

Is it a way to try and stop Labour make the changes they want to make, cutting corporate welfare instead of social welfare?

tax credit cuts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32276492

Conservatives plan to save 5bn gbp by cutting tax credits...  but they're willing to cut 1bn worth of tax income from inheritence tax..

this is a good thought on it:
http://guerillawire.org/politics/first-tory-budget-giveaways-for-the-obscenely-rich-funded-by-the-poor/

it really is starting something of a class war potentially.

George Osbourne:
"That tax credit bill would go up and up and up, the country couldn't afford it"

If he introduced the higher minimum wage, without cutting the tax credit, why wouldnt that cut the cost? That would be much more logical...

its all unravelling as more and more reports of the ill effects of the tax credit cuts come out, from amongst conservatives themselves. The Tories may be falling apart right in front of us. From desperate attacks by Hameron on Corbyn with out of context quotes,  with nasty Tory Theresa May's speech, and now this. We will see the erosion of the majority Cameron has.

Or maybe an alignment of centrists in Conservatives and Labour?

And lets not forget the problem of the government U-turn on renewable energies.. two solar panel companies going bust today.

Conservative Conference & Corbyn Foreign Policy

Funny that the 'party for the workers' Conservatives can't even hold a conference in their championed 'northern powerhouse' without a 'ring of steel' defense from the workers around them. It really says it all itself.

Will there be fringe meetings overspilling onto the streets like at Labour's? I hope for their sake and our sake there is, but doubt it.

If you want to listen to something interesting on Corbyn:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06fnmjk

Why Labour and J McDonnell's Plan excites me.

Why tax breaks being cut for buy to let landlords would be great news.

Where oh where does my rent go?  Lining the landlord's pocket. Paying for their holidays. And they get a tax cut on top? That is ridiculous. Call me envious but... its not really, its more from a belief that people earning money should be doing something to deserve it. Taxes, great - at least they get returned into public services. But the rest of my rent that doesnt pay for the building maintenance etc...

It should be that the government (who is supposed to help manage society) encourages the next generation of homeowners, if they really do want people to be homeowners as they pledge. If they actually conversely encourage buy to let landlords, dont control rents, but simply give them a tax break for doing it, they clearly dont want to encourage home ownership. They are pushing an agenda of age and class division. Encouraging and helping the haves whilst reducing the have nots to vehicles through whom the haves get richer.

Don't even get me started on absentee landlordism (for me this is someone who spends almost all their time or is entirely based abroad).  Does the government realise that the money these landlords make won't be even spent in the UK?

In fact, labour's plan to stimulate growth in the UK is great, and this could be a way of helping to do it fairly. If rents were controlled and lowered, disposable incomes of many would rise, which would be spent more in the UK and the subsequent growth in jobs and consumption would help the recovery. If the better off are getting more, they are more likely to save it - or spend it on luxury (most of which is outflows of money from the UK - to abroad). OK, if the government then invested with this saved money through borrowing, then they might see more growth. However it isn't a core recovery and the savings of larger firms aren't necessarily going to be reinvested in the UK. The government won't tax highest incomes more to invest, it wont borrow to invest. It does enjoy transferring investment in people from itself to the people themselves and shelving its own debt onto them, whilst taking from those who can least afford to take it.

Anyway, enough of that..  one most important point though. Oinky Cameron's government say that they want to stop paying high housing benefits to subsidise the landlords... but instead of cutting the housing benefits and hoping, they should limit the rents and then they wont have to pay as much anyway. I think their way in theory could work too, but it is putting too much hope in landlords to appreciate the people they enjoy trampling on to help pay for their holidays and yachts. (not all but some, especially in the South East of England).

Introducing the Real living wage

This helps with some of the points above, increasing disposable income which will be spent usefully, helping the immediate economy.
Clearly this is missing where this wage isnt being paid.
Businesses will fret about it, saying they can't handle the extra costs. However, much was made of the introduction of the minimum wage, and there wasn't a huge loss of jobs. Really, if the wage rises encourage spending and increase the market base of companies, then they will find increased sales. Competition should help defend against price hikes in response to the demand growth.

In the end the reasoning is similar to why Ford allegedly wanted weekends for his workers - so they would have a need to buy his cars to get out and about.

Tackling the gender pay gap and building more homes

Not many people would argue with these I hope. This will help close the inequality in home ownership across class and age hopefully.

Restoring and extending trade union rights

This is important to keep the worker's wages on track. Hopefully going to be addressed is also how the recent strikes are being demonised by the current government... a politics of envy here would actually be appropriate (not the type you usually hear about though)!  People should see strong unions and envy the workers their ability to negotiate wages and working conditions, then join and make their union effective too! Complaining about unions not representing you but not voting or taking an interest is a bit like not voting and complaining about the government you didnt vote against. Greater rights to electronic ballot could see unions more effective and with better turnouts. If they can help with this the current government would go some way to getting more agreement from the unions themselves perhaps..

Aggressively tackling tax avoidance and evasion

However much they can claw back on this the better. It is a constant game of cat and mouse, but if it was my job to catch evaders/avoiders and recoup money, yet gave up and told my boss it was too tough, Id be in trouble... at least moved to a new department. Giving in on this is failing and so it is welcome the labour party want to be much more vigorous than the Conservatives (probably cosying up to their rich donors).

Asking ex-civil servant Lord Kerslake to review how the Treasury works
Reviewing the Bank of England's inflation mandate and the work of Revenue and Customs:

Precedent in the US fed. Could be said Carney has been somewhat already putting other things before the inflation target without being accountable. At least this may bring about more accountability.

What isnt addressed:  How labour and business will be effected, possibly rewritten, by increased use of computers and robotics. How this actually calls for a scaling up of government, not down. The expanded leisure time and increased productivity will leave some workers with less hours or no hours. The government needs to help prepare people for the new jobs which will come out of this, or otherwise/whilst ensuring that some of the extra productivity brought about feeds money into a welfare system to help people live without jobs, if they are not required.