Tuesday 28th July 2015

[ohsocynical]

My only worry is if Corbyn for whatever reason doesn't gain power, will Burnham, or the others take the new message on board? I somehow doubt they will...

For a brief moment the other day, I wondered what Corbyn would do with all the new MPs, who are said to be generally more to the left than in the past...A big clear out and bring in new faces and ideas. Why not?

It's what I'd be tempted do.

(my bold)

Should Corbyn lose - which I still think is likely - I can't help but feel the entire swell of opinion and support will be whitewashed. The listening that his opponents say they're doing seems to be a little like those "difficult decisions" we're so used to being told about: it only goes one way. The choice is easy and the difficulties are the consequences for everyone else - listening is all very well, but many seem least inclined to listen to anything they didn't already prefer.

I'm happy that Labour, under whatever leader, should be a broad church and that the party is at its best when it includes all - that's involved compromises from many on its much-maligned left for years. But the right seems far too busy disowning Corbyn not least because he is doing well. It doesn't augur well, does it? That's a clear call to listen precisely to his supporters' message being responded to with a feverish desire to deny them any validity or credence whatsoever. And that's a failure of the PLP that will lose it far more than a few marginals - it'll Clegg the whole party.

And suddenly, thanks to the stupidity of the Blairites, people are saying that if wanting a fair deal and more social conscience makes them Hard Left, then that's what they are.
Corbyn really has shaken up things up. 'Hard Left' doesn't seem to be such a dirty word any more.

[SpinningHugo]

As I said the other day, there was basically a Mandelson-orchestrated attempted coup in the hours and days immediately after the GE.

Whatever happens on Sept 11 (oo-err) it has basically blown up right in their faces.

This is good news.

That is Blairites under the bed rubbish.

After such a catastrophic defeat, what would you expect the likes of Mandleson to say?

"Ed was right to reject the approach we adopted in 97, 2001 and 2005?"

He and the others who had kept quiet (and largely they had) would have had to have been saints.

Talk of a coup is rubbish. Yes people like me wanted to draw a line under the 2015 disaster and try something else. Lots seem to agree. Save that the "something else" seems to have more relation to Eric Heffer's worldview than anything electable.

As you gleefully repeatedly say: there just are not that many Blairites in the Labour party.

[SpinningHugo]

Though how much has JC actually mentioned at least some of those things in this contest?

Part of the reason he is winning support is that he comes across as a fairly mainstream sensible social democrat.

(of course, some of those who know his history are aware its a bit more complicated than that, but.....)

All of them. Repeatedly.

[ohsocynical]

'What does Britain want?' France blasts Cameron as he STILL fails to outline EU demands

BRITAIN'S top Brussels official has admitted David Cameron still HASN'T set out a detailed list of demands for EU reform, despite growing pressure from his fellow leaders.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/ ... e-pressure

[Tubby Isaacs]

What actual concrete policy proposals is Corbyn offering, come to that?

Renationalise BT, gas, electricity, post office.

Free university education.

Much higher infrastructure spending.

Rent controls.

A reversal of the reforms since the 80s in the NHS.

Much higher taxes.

Implicitly, withdrawal from EU and NATO.

Lots of that's filed under "have you thought about the consequences, Minister?"

He was talking about "renegotiating the EU", which will won't be helped by his anti-NATO position. Other members might not be too impressed with him telling them to take big write offs on Greece either.

The NHS internal market disappeared in Scotland a decade ago. Had that really made all that much difference? Does anybody really want another big reorganization?

Re rail, London's "concession" system seems to work well, brought in by Ken Livingstone. This might be better than trying to force Network Rail to run trains it probably doesn't run.

The universities thing is silly populism, ignoring access issues, with the other poor sods stuck in underfunded schools. Supporting this after what's happened in Scotland is daft.

[rebeccariots2]

#ImInWorkJeremy: Only a handful of doctors actually opt out of working weekends
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/im ... ly-6153084" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
...Consultants are entitled to opt out of performing non-emergency work at weekends - an option the Health Secretary wants to remove.

But new research has revealed just a handful of consultants take advantage of the option.

Across 15 care trusts - who employ 4,095 consultants - only ONE had opted out of weekend working, according to a series of Freedom of Information requests.

If the pattern is the same nationwide, it would mean just 12 consultants had taken advantage of the opt out...

[Tubby Isaacs]

'What does Britain want?' France blasts Cameron as he STILL fails to outline EU demands

BRITAIN'S top Brussels official has admitted David Cameron still HASN'T set out a detailed list of demands for EU reform, despite growing pressure from his fellow leaders.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/ ... e-pressure

That's interesting because he forced a presentation on the other leaders, who were understandably more concerned about Greece. He even pigeon-holed poor old Tsipras and made him listen one to one.

Sounds like his presentation was the sort of broadbrush rubbish he spouted in 2005 before winning the leadership.

[rebeccariots2]

'What does Britain want?' France blasts Cameron as he STILL fails to outline EU demands

BRITAIN'S top Brussels official has admitted David Cameron still HASN'T set out a detailed list of demands for EU reform, despite growing pressure from his fellow leaders.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/ ... e-pressure

Welcome to our world, EU leaders. Getting an answer out of Cameron is nigh on impossible. If you do get one ... please don't rely on it being reliable. He's quite likely to U-turn on his previous 'pledges' and statements. He's an expert in refusing to spell out things that people really have a right to know before taking important decisions ... such as how they will cut 12bn from the social security budget.

[onebuttonmonkey]

Though how much has JC actually mentioned at least some of those things in this contest?

Part of the reason he is winning support is that he comes across as a fairly mainstream sensible social democrat.

(of course, some of those who know his history are aware its a bit more complicated than that, but.....)

There's problems with the outright dismissal of those policies with a "it doesn't work", too. Not that you're doing this Anatoly, but it keeps being done above (without, I notice, an alternative or a synthesis of any sort offered).

For example, rent controls have worked very well in many cities in that terrible socialist nightmare America - landlords don't like them, but being a landlord is a choice and one that's been increasing the property bubble. Renationalisation of the railways - letting the franchises lapse without renewal and taking them back in public hands - seems sensible. East Coast ran at a profit and it's perfectly possible to develop a strategy to take the rest of them back as well as to remove the useless appearance of competition that has existed side-by-side with phenomenal fare increases and increased subsidies. It's easy to say "it's a success" but current railway pricing and subsidy is massively unpopular and simply isn't working for passengers or the state.

I keep coming back to this: there are some who can only see the left - the voice within Labour challenging from there or policies originating in the left - solely in the terms of 1983 or thereabouts. This rigid approach to Corbyn and the left doesn't prove he's trapped in the past - it shows they are.

He's coming across to many (outside the Blairite camp and the press) as a sensible social democrat because, in the main, he is. He's not a dinosaur - those judging him are prehistorically attached to their own mythology. I'd like to see a recognition of value in some of the ideas as well as a reasoned argument against the rest. Instead, Corbyn's written off wholesale as if millions weren't sick of the banking and market orgy that's seen many things they care about flogged off and the service costlier and, in some cases, far worse. And equally, having travelled so far to the right since 1994 - never mind 1983 - where else can an alternative come from if not the left?

[ohsocynical]

'What does Britain want?' France blasts Cameron as he STILL fails to outline EU demands

BRITAIN'S top Brussels official has admitted David Cameron still HASN'T set out a detailed list of demands for EU reform, despite growing pressure from his fellow leaders.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/ ... e-pressure

That's interesting because he forced a presentation on the other leaders, who were understandably more concerned about Greece. He even pigeon-holed poor old Tsipras and made him listen one to one.

Sounds like his presentation was the sort of broadbrush rubbish he spouted in 2005 before winning the leadership.

He applies the broadbrush presentation to every speech he makes no matter what the subject.

[ohsocynical]

Though how much has JC actually mentioned at least some of those things in this contest?

Part of the reason he is winning support is that he comes across as a fairly mainstream sensible social democrat.

(of course, some of those who know his history are aware its a bit more complicated than that, but.....)

There's problems with the outright dismissal of those policies with a "it doesn't work", too. Not that you're doing this Anatoly, but it keeps being done above (without, I notice, an alternative or a synthesis of any sort offered).

For example, rent controls have worked very well in many cities in that terrible socialist nightmare America - landlords don't like them, but being a landlord is a choice and one that's been increasing the property bubble. Renationalisation of the railways - letting the franchises lapse without renewal and taking them back in public hands - seems sensible. East Coast ran at a profit and it's perfectly possible to develop a strategy to take the rest of them back as well as to remove the useless appearance of competition that has existed side-by-side with phenomenal fare increases and increased subsidies. It's easy to say "it's a success" but current railway pricing and subsidy is massively unpopular and simply isn't working for passengers or the state.

I keep coming back to this: there are some who can only see the left - the voice within Labour challenging from there or policies originating in the left - solely in the terms of 1983 or thereabouts. This rigid approach to Corbyn and the left doesn't prove he's trapped in the past - it shows they are.

He's coming across to many (outside the Blairite camp and the press) as a sensible social democrat because, in the main, he is. He's not a dinosaur - those judging him are prehistorically attached to their own mythology. I'd like to see a recognition of value in some of the ideas as well as a reasoned argument against the rest. Instead, Corbyn's written off wholesale as if millions weren't sick of the banking and market orgy that's seen many things they care about flogged off and the service costlier and, in some cases, far worse. And equally, having travelled so far to the right since 1994 - never mind 1983 - where else can an alternative come from if not the left?

Agree.

And also.
The Tories are taking us back to the thirties where there was little or no social safety net or medical care for the poor, which means we have to literally start all over again in some areas.

[Tubby Isaacs]

For example, rent controls have worked very well in many cities in that terrible socialist nightmare America - landlords don't like them, but being a landlord is a choice and one that's been increasing the property bubble. Renationalisation of the railways - letting the franchises lapse without renewal and taking them back in public hands - seems sensible. East Coast ran at a profit and it's perfectly possible to develop a strategy to take the rest of them back as well as to remove the useless appearance of competition that has existed side-by-side with phenomenal fare increases and increased subsidies. It's easy to say "it's a success" but current railway pricing and subsidy is massively unpopular and simply isn't working for passengers or the state.

Increased subsidies on what? British Rail?

[onebuttonmonkey]

What actual concrete policy proposals is Corbyn offering, come to that?

Renationalise BT, gas, electricity, post office.

Free university education.

Much higher infrastructure spending.

Rent controls.

A reversal of the reforms since the 80s in the NHS.

Much higher taxes.

Implicitly, withdrawal from EU and NATO.

Lots of that's filed under "have you thought about the consequences, Minister?"

He was talking about "renegotiating the EU", which will won't be helped by his anti-NATO position. Other members might not be too impressed with him telling them to take big write offs on Greece either.

The NHS internal market disappeared in Scotland a decade ago. Had that really made all that much difference? Does anybody really want another big reorganization?

Re rail, London's "concession" system seems to work well, brought in by Ken Livingstone. This might be better than trying to force Network Rail to run trains it probably doesn't run.

The universities thing is silly populism, ignoring access issues, with the other poor sods stuck in underfunded schools. Supporting this after what's happened in Scotland is daft.

The increase in fees is costing money not saving it. Outstanding unpaid loans are sold at a pittance and the loss written off, a situation only set to increase with greater debt levels making more people less able to pay greater sums. You may call it silly populism but the truth is it is popular for good reason, as well being far more practical than offloading the cost to the future while saddling people with attritional debt.

[onebuttonmonkey]

For example, rent controls have worked very well in many cities in that terrible socialist nightmare America - landlords don't like them, but being a landlord is a choice and one that's been increasing the property bubble. Renationalisation of the railways - letting the franchises lapse without renewal and taking them back in public hands - seems sensible. East Coast ran at a profit and it's perfectly possible to develop a strategy to take the rest of them back as well as to remove the useless appearance of competition that has existed side-by-side with phenomenal fare increases and increased subsidies. It's easy to say "it's a success" but current railway pricing and subsidy is massively unpopular and simply isn't working for passengers or the state.

Increased subsidies on what? British Rail?

We pay more than five times per head to rail franchises than we did when we owned the railways. We see none of the benefit of private shareholders.

[Tubby Isaacs]

That's interesting because he forced a presentation on the other leaders, who were understandably more concerned about Greece. He even pigeon-holed poor old Tsipras and made him listen one to one.

Sounds like his presentation was the sort of broadbrush rubbish he spouted in 2005 before winning the leadership.

He applies the broadbrush presentation to every speech he makes no matter what the subject.

At least normally the audience are impressed to be near the PM or being paid by their employers to listen to him banging on.

This time, they were the other EU leaders. At the end of a long day.

[rebeccariots2]

Right - I'm going to lower and cheapen the tone now.

I am enjoying the white vest Jezza tweets enormously. Expecting lots of journalists to be down Holloway Road looking for a market stall selling them as I write ...

And just seen another cracking tweet re the fantasy film casting of Corbyn being Donald Sutherland.

He's giving Andy Burnham's eyelashes and Liz Kendall's outfits a run for their money, eh.

[Tubby Isaacs]

For example, rent controls have worked very well in many cities in that terrible socialist nightmare America - landlords don't like them, but being a landlord is a choice and one that's been increasing the property bubble. Renationalisation of the railways - letting the franchises lapse without renewal and taking them back in public hands - seems sensible. East Coast ran at a profit and it's perfectly possible to develop a strategy to take the rest of them back as well as to remove the useless appearance of competition that has existed side-by-side with phenomenal fare increases and increased subsidies. It's easy to say "it's a success" but current railway pricing and subsidy is massively unpopular and simply isn't working for passengers or the state.

Increased subsidies on what? British Rail?

We pay more than five times per head to rail franchises than we did when we owned the railways. We see none of the benefit of private shareholders.

So we pay more subsidy to the railways now compared to when John Major was in charge, slashing public investment all across the board, and rail was seen as a declining industry?

[PorFavor]

Right - I'm going to lower and cheapen the tone now.

I am enjoying the white vest Jezza tweets enormously. Expecting lots of journalists to be down Holloway Road looking for a market stall selling them as I write ...

And just seen another cracking tweet re the fantasy film casting of Corbyn being Donald Sutherland.

He's giving Andy Burnham's eyelashes and Liz Kendall's outfits a run for their money, eh.

I'll out-low and out-cheap you.

Donald Sutherland, even at his present age, is the most fatally attractive man in the world. (Mis) cast as Jeremy Corbyn? Fantasy is right.

[Tubby Isaacs]

The increase in fees is costing money not saving it. Outstanding unpaid loans are sold at a pittance and the loss written off, a situation only set to increase with greater debt levels making more people less able to pay greater sums. You may call it silly populism but the truth is it is popular for good reason, as well being far more practical than offloading the cost to the future while saddling people with attritional debt.

It's popular because it's a high profile freebie that overwhelmingly favours the middle class. Good in itself, but the experience of Scotland is that people won't pay higher taxes for it and money gets taken out of schools, FE and access doesn't improve. Clegg and Cable, for their idiotic U-turn and supporting the far too high £9k, did at least understand about access.

There are thousands of better things to spend £10bn on. Schools, for one.

[Tubby Isaacs]

OBM, what train journeys do you take regularly?

Just my regular journey from London-Glos, the Reading bottleneck has been sorted out, and the Golden Valley Line (Swindon-Cheltenham) is now compeltely double-tracked.

Have you honestly not seen investment improvements anywhere?

[rebeccariots2]

Sorry.

Dan Hodges Does Not Rejoin Labour
http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2015/ ... abour.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[utopiandreams]

'What does Britain want?' France blasts Cameron as he STILL fails to outline EU demands

BRITAIN'S top Brussels official has admitted David Cameron still HASN'T set out a detailed list of demands for EU reform, despite growing pressure from his fellow leaders.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/ ... e-pressure

Sorry to log in just to pass a facile comment amongst such an interesting leadership discussion but after reading that Express article, ohso, I couldn't resist. Immediately after quoting Osborne, the article continues with...

Mr Cameron is expected to meet with other EU colleagues in October once a draft of demands has been thrashed out.

Possibly because it was no longer quoting George I began to wonder whether it were penned by Natalie Rowe.

[Temulkar]

Renationalise BT, gas, electricity, post office.

Free university education.

Much higher infrastructure spending.

Rent controls.

A reversal of the reforms since the 80s in the NHS.

Much higher taxes.

Implicitly, withdrawal from EU and NATO.

The usual stuff of the left.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but isnt Labour a party of the Left or has Progress completely abandoned the pretence now? Opposition parties don't win elections from the centre, they win by opposing.

None of that list (with the exception of greatly increased infrastructure spending) is sensible. Which is why nobody else is arguing for them: they know it as well as I do.

The problem has been that they have suggested nothing but platitudes, and haven't explained why things like rent controls, which sound superficially like a good idea, are dumb.

Thats a matter of opinion not fact.

Control of our utilities, you know water and energy, are actually of the highest importance for national security given the challenges of climate change and declining fossil fuel resources, which are mainly located in countries hostile to the UK. Or are you advocating invading a few more middle eastern countries to secure our energy supplies in ten years or so?

The argument for free university has been made many times, the current system does not work, and in fact costs more. The social benefits for a free education have been demonstrated time and time again. Within a new Educational structure as has been proposed it is not only sensible, it is contrary to evidence to claim otherwise. Look at Finland; the evidence is quite clear, thats one of the reasons they have the best Education system in the world, because they looked at evidence instead of dismissing things because of neoliberal ideology.

Rent controls work in major cities all over the world including New York - they are needed in London and other major cities - unless your in favour of BtL slumlords fleecing the public purse for Housing Benefit.

A reversal of reforms in the NHS since the 80s? Certainly the Labour and Coalition reforms, and certainly the PFI stranglehold from before that. Not only sensible, financially responsible.

Higher taxes for higher earners. YEP they caused the financial meltdown now the fuckers can pay for it. Sensible and fair.

Nowhere has Corbyn said he wants to leave NATO; thats just a Blarite smear, and he is quite nuanced on the EU. However after Greece, blind support for the EU even amongst pro Eu groups and parties is certainly being questioned, so nuance is eminently sensible.

At the moment the Blairite wing of the party is wedded to the past. It has no answer to the questions Labour faces today, indeed, Blairism has now lost Labour two elections on the trot. Progress is the new Militant.

[onebuttonmonkey]

OBM, what train journeys do you take regularly?

Just my regular journey from London-Glos, the Reading bottleneck has been sorted out, and the Golden Valley Line (Swindon-Cheltenham) is now compeltely double-tracked.

Have you honestly not seen investment improvements anywhere?

Anecdotes, eh? Transpennine a lot and Northern trains - dreadful, overcrowded, late and slow. Electrification of our Northern powerhouse has been cancelled. Virgin Trains - ridiculously expensive, over crowded. Unreliable. East Coast, which was taken back into public hands given how badly it was run, and in public hands turned a profit - I presume you support the reprivatisation of that? Southern Trains - because I go down south quite often to see family - my friend has seen his travelcard go up by double digit percentages year on year. He's a civil servant and so hasn't had a pay rise since the noughties. That's nice. He still regularly takes two hours to do a 30 minute journey. Not to mention that all the journeys are ridiculously complex and irritating to buy tickets for - nice that third parties can skim a fee and still make money, eh? How on earth is that better than, i don't know, making it easier and cheaper? - cost an extreme amount if you turn up on the day and regularly have far fewer carriages than are needed. I only recently learned to drive, Tubby - I've been fed up with trains for 30 years of regular travelling.

Imagine you have a car. It has running costs. You are fed up with them, so you flog the car to someone for less than it's worth because he says he can let you use it more cheaply due to his competitive car experience. You then are charged five times more for running costs than before, and the per mile charge goes through the roof. Every time it breaks down you're still expected to pay the repairs. And even though it's been upgraded to a newer car once or twice over the years, the amount of money the new cars cost to buy and run are a fraction of the amount you've paid for it and could have managed if you owned it. Rail privatisation, right there.

The subsidy doesn't include cancelled projects, either - although the contract with Virgin to upgrade one line cost billions to the taxpayer and failed. Virgin lost nothing - they obliged us to maximise their profits and then we had to pay them back for not doing so. Nice.

And yes, I remember British Rail back in the day. It was crap. The reason it was crap because governments wouldn't spend money on it. We now spend far more money, but a chunk of that goes into private hands. It's not good value for money.

I recommend anyone interested in the effects of privatisation reads Private Island by James Meek. It is staggeringly powerful and covers the costs - hidden and explicit - across electricity and gas, house and rail, telecoms, post and water privatisation. A badly run state netowrk is far preferable to the costs of what we have now. And letting the francxhises lapse and taking them back is a sensible, long-term approach that allows us to do it in a considered, phased way.

[utopiandreams]

Oh Yeah, Simon Jenkins had it about right regarding Cameron and corruption. I rather agree with his closing line, "I suspect he will do nothing but make another speech."

[SpinningHugo]

Renationalise BT, gas, electricity, post office.

Free university education.

Much higher infrastructure spending.

Rent controls.

A reversal of the reforms since the 80s in the NHS.

Much higher taxes.

Implicitly, withdrawal from EU and NATO.

Lots of that's filed under "have you thought about the consequences, Minister?"

He was talking about "renegotiating the EU", which will won't be helped by his anti-NATO position. Other members might not be too impressed with him telling them to take big write offs on Greece either.

The NHS internal market disappeared in Scotland a decade ago. Had that really made all that much difference? Does anybody really want another big reorganization?

Re rail, London's "concession" system seems to work well, brought in by Ken Livingstone. This might be better than trying to force Network Rail to run trains it probably doesn't run.

The universities thing is silly populism, ignoring access issues, with the other poor sods stuck in underfunded schools. Supporting this after what's happened in Scotland is daft.

The increase in fees is costing money not saving it. Outstanding unpaid loans are sold at a pittance and the loss written off, a situation only set to increase with greater debt levels making more people less able to pay greater sums. You may call it silly populism but the truth is it is popular for good reason, as well being far more practical than offloading the cost to the future while saddling people with attritional debt.

Just untrue. This is all taken into account in the university funding model
.

Of course the debts are sold at below book level: what on earth would you expect?

The entire point is a large slice of it will never be paid back. It is a generous scheme. Far less regressive than the previous system, with better access outcomes. We have run concurrently the the old system in Scotland. It is running their Universities into the ground and they hav worse access.

We could do better and put in place what Browne originally proposed, but the current system is actually a good one.

As for rent controls, they are a disaster evertime tried. Which US cities are you claiming they are a success in? New York? San Francisco? They are a nightmare. See that well known rightwing nutjob, Paul Krugman


http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opini ... ffair.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[onebuttonmonkey]

Lots of that's filed under "have you thought about the consequences, Minister?"

He was talking about "renegotiating the EU", which will won't be helped by his anti-NATO position. Other members might not be too impressed with him telling them to take big write offs on Greece either.

The NHS internal market disappeared in Scotland a decade ago. Had that really made all that much difference? Does anybody really want another big reorganization?

Re rail, London's "concession" system seems to work well, brought in by Ken Livingstone. This might be better than trying to force Network Rail to run trains it probably doesn't run.

The universities thing is silly populism, ignoring access issues, with the other poor sods stuck in underfunded schools. Supporting this after what's happened in Scotland is daft.

The increase in fees is costing money not saving it. Outstanding unpaid loans are sold at a pittance and the loss written off, a situation only set to increase with greater debt levels making more people less able to pay greater sums. You may call it silly populism but the truth is it is popular for good reason, as well being far more practical than offloading the cost to the future while saddling people with attritional debt.

Just untrue. This is all taken into account in the university funding model
.

Of course the debts are sold at below book level: what on earth would you expect?

The entire point is a large slice of it will never be paid back. It is a generous scheme. Far less regressive than the previous system, with better access outcomes. We have run concurrently the the old system in Scotland. It is running their Universities into the ground and they hav worse access.

We could do better and put in place what Browne originally proposed, but the current system is actually a good one.

As for rent controls, they are a disaster evertime tried. Which US cities are you claiming they are a success in? New York? San Francisco? They are a nightmare. See that well known rightwing nutjob, Paul Krugman


http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opini ... ffair.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That Krugman article is from 2000 so you're clearly living in the past et cetera. Sorry - couldn't resist.

I've friends that can only afford to stay in San Francisco because of rent controls. Who are they disastrous for, Hugo? Not the people who depend on them to be able to live. And again, at least arguing for them raises the possibility we may rebalance a horrendously skewed housing and rental market. If we don't build more houses, we have to look at how to control rent.

On student loans, it's not the write-down per se, it's the amount it's sold off for less than the worth - a punitive loss compared to the cost. Maybe there's a better paying model, but I haven't seen it detaled, and I see my friends kids ending up with £60,000 of debt. I'm sure when the working class kids are taken to court for non-payment, they'll be comforting themselves with the case that the system that beggared them is less regressive than some others. It isn't a generous scheme, it's a way of offsetting cost on the books that, since raising the fees, has only gotten costlier.

Seriously, I take the point that access has dropped in Scotland and I also agree that some of the arguments against loans are a little shortsighted - but for me the downside of the loan system more than outweighs the growing debt and the deferred cost of unrepayable amounts of debt. (I'd like to say more on that, but ask me in a few weeks when I've changed my job and can!) Similarly, it's necessary to push for the left - the idea of changing the model, not least because accommodation can be made with it.

I may be what's considered exceptionally lefty these days, but I recognise we need to apply principles in new ways. I don't blame Corbyn for a lightness of detail or for pushing for more than he'll be able to get, though. It's how the right managed to move the goalposts so far.

[utopiandreams]

... Re-nationalisation of bus services would have a much wider, positive impact than re-nationalisation of the railways, allowing councils to use profits from city routes to subsidise rural routes, instead of limited council tax funds. The rural poor are neglected because they are outnumbered by Tory voting neighbours. Our country is turning into a complete basket case because political policy is skewed toward pandering to the niche needs of a handful of middle class, middle England swing voters.

Sounds like you're advocating public transport, Willow.

[onebuttonmonkey]

As I said the other day, there was basically a Mandelson-orchestrated attempted coup in the hours and days immediately after the GE.

Whatever happens on Sept 11 (oo-err) it has basically blown up right in their faces.

This is good news.

That is Blairites under the bed rubbish.

After such a catastrophic defeat, what would you expect the likes of Mandleson to say?

"Ed was right to reject the approach we adopted in 97, 2001 and 2005?"

He and the others who had kept quiet (and largely they had) would have had to have been saints.

Talk of a coup is rubbish. Yes people like me wanted to draw a line under the 2015 disaster and try something else. Lots seem to agree. Save that the "something else" seems to have more relation to Eric Heffer's worldview than anything electable.

As you gleefully repeatedly say: there just are not that many Blairites in the Labour party.

Serious point: it was the alternative and the hope that won Blair the election in 1997, not how left or right he was. Those on the right still didn't trust him, despite pledges he needn't have made. He undoubtedly made the party more palatable, but the idea that being rightist was key to that has been added in retrospect - he was still publically saying we shouldn't be ashamed of our socialism in 1994, for example.

http://www.britishpoliticalspeech.org/s ... speech=200" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The reality was never going to be as popular as the idea of him, but still, he lost votes at every further election and Brown more still. Miliband didn't reject that approach so much as was considered to the left of what was acceptable by an entrenched and further right press - the fact the Tories can steal so many of his ideas and announce them just goes to show the perception of leftness was not equal to the actuality of it.

I seriously think that, if we want to win, we should start with what we stand for and then persuade people of it. We have tried to follow the focus groups and slavishly been in thrall to a very Westminster version of public opinion - and even Miliband did his fair share of that. If we can't persuade people of the value of our offering, sobeit. But we should have something people want on offer, but we have to also lead that, not say, "what do you want us to be?" and expect that to win. A real change isn't about left or right but about trying to shape ourselves and lead with ideas, not follow a narrowly framed version of public opinion into oblivion.

[Tubby Isaacs]

OBM, what train journeys do you take regularly?

Just my regular journey from London-Glos, the Reading bottleneck has been sorted out, and the Golden Valley Line (Swindon-Cheltenham) is now compeltely double-tracked.

Have you honestly not seen investment improvements anywhere?

Anecdotes, eh? Transpennine a lot and Northern trains - dreadful, overcrowded, late and slow. Electrification of our Northern powerhouse has been cancelled. Virgin Trains - ridiculously expensive, over crowded. Unreliable. East Coast, which was taken back into public hands given how badly it was run, and in public hands turned a profit - I presume you support the reprivatisation of that?

Anecdote and a rhetorical question. I've found lots of stuff happening on Transpennine routes. Nothing like this was happening under BR, in its period of low subsidy you refer to. The problems come from passenger numbers exploding. So if you're not using trains so much, lots of people are using them far more.

I don't have a particularly strong view on East Coast. Though the DfT seem to have got a decent price for the franchise- £3.3bn- because there were 3 bidders. That would return far more to the taxpayer than East Coast did, though Caroline Lucas didn't seem even to be aware that the train companies paid the government money at all.

The electrification hasn't been cancelled by the way. It's postponed because The Great Western Electrification has run into problems. It was being done by Network Rail, which suggests to me they don't particularly need to be taking over train franchises at the moment.

The fragmentation should be reduced over time, but the bigger problem is subsidy being too low, not privatization.

[onebuttonmonkey]

Anyway, that's my blurt of leftyism out of the way for a bit - I've got a few other things to be getting on with this evening (you know, seizing the means of production, participating as a worker in emancipating ourselves from an alienating form of wage slavery, developing a materialist critique of history, that kind of thing. Maybe a snack, too.). Good evening, all.

[GetYou]

The franchise system, set up by Prescott, works well... Another New Labour triumph.

I almost spat my tea out when I read this. A good chuckle for a long Tuesday at work.

[SpinningHugo]

The increase in fees is costing money not saving it. Outstanding unpaid loans are sold at a pittance and the loss written off, a situation only set to increase with greater debt levels making more people less able to pay greater sums. You may call it silly populism but the truth is it is popular for good reason, as well being far more practical than offloading the cost to the future while saddling people with attritional debt.

Just untrue. This is all taken into account in the university funding model
.

Of course the debts are sold at below book level: what on earth would you expect?

The entire point is a large slice of it will never be paid back. It is a generous scheme. Far less regressive than the previous system, with better access outcomes. We have run concurrently the the old system in Scotland. It is running their Universities into the ground and they hav worse access.

We could do better and put in place what Browne originally proposed, but the current system is actually a good one.

As for rent controls, they are a disaster evertime tried. Which US cities are you claiming they are a success in? New York? San Francisco? They are a nightmare. See that well known rightwing nutjob, Paul Krugman


http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opini ... ffair.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That Krugman article is from 2000 so you're clearly living in the past et cetera. Sorry - couldn't resist.

I've friends that can only afford to stay in San Francisco because of rent controls. Who are they disastrous for, Hugo? Not the people who depend on them to be able to live. And again, at least arguing for them raises the possibility we may rebalance a horrendously skewed housing and rental market. If we don't build more houses, we have to look at how to control rent.

On student loans, it's not the write-down per se, it's the amount it's sold off for less than the worth - a punitive loss compared to the cost. Maybe there's a better paying model, but I haven't seen it detaled, and I see my friends kids ending up with £60,000 of debt. I'm sure when the working class kids are taken to court for non-payment, they'll be comforting themselves with the case that the system that beggared them is less regressive than some others. It isn't a generous scheme, it's a way of offsetting cost on the books that, since raising the fees, has only gotten costlier.

Seriously, I take the point that access has dropped in Scotland and I also agree that some of the arguments against loans are a little shortsighted - but for me the downside of the loan system more than outweighs the growing debt and the deferred cost of unrepayable amounts of debt. (I'd like to say more on that, but ask me in a few weeks when I've changed my job and can!) Similarly, it's necessary to push for the left - the idea of changing the model, not least because accommodation can be made with it.

I may be what's considered exceptionally lefty these days, but I recognise we need to apply principles in new ways. I don't blame Corbyn for a lightness of detail or for pushing for more than he'll be able to get, though. It's how the right managed to move the goalposts so far.

You think the basic economics Krugman there explains has changed?

It hasn't.

You won't find economists of left or right who favour price fixing. None.

The people it is disastrous for are those other people priced out of San Francisco because of want of stock. Want of stock created by controls. Read the Krugman piece. Every time you fix prices it creates a shortage. One of the few things every economist agrees on.

But yeah, great for a minority (ie your friends). Just not overall. Once introduced they are hard to get rid of because there is a minority of (lucky) beneficiaries.

University education is not free. The beneficiaries are a minority, who are disproportionate ly both the children of the wealthy and people who will be wealthy. There is nothing leftwing about a rightwing policy of benefitting the rich through free university education paid for by everyone.

[Tubby Isaacs]

... Re-nationalisation of bus services would have a much wider, positive impact than re-nationalisation of the railways, allowing councils to use profits from city routes to subsidise rural routes, instead of limited council tax funds. The rural poor are neglected because they are outnumbered by Tory voting neighbours. Our country is turning into a complete basket case because political policy is skewed toward pandering to the niche needs of a handful of middle class, middle England swing voters.

Sounds like you're advocating public transport, Willow.

Labour had a good policy on buses at the last election, with stronger regulation that should have reduced the margins of the bus operators. A

But what was noticeable was that councils could have already gone down this route already, but weren't. I think you have to factor in what councils actually have the capacity to do and want to do. You get the same thing with Education, where the left want everything put back in LAs as if that'll solve everything. Lots of councils don't even want the schools they have. Better to seek to think in terms of what they will do, and work around that, in my view.

[utopiandreams]

#ImInWorkJeremy: Only a handful of doctors actually opt out of working weekends
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/im ... ly-6153084" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
...Consultants are entitled to opt out of performing non-emergency work at weekends - an option the Health Secretary wants to remove.

But new research has revealed just a handful of consultants take advantage of the option.

Across 15 care trusts - who employ 4,095 consultants - only ONE had opted out of weekend working, according to a series of Freedom of Information requests.

If the pattern is the same nationwide, it would mean just 12 consultants had taken advantage of the opt out...

To coin an IDS' expression, I believe the crux of the matter is not consultants but of weekend use of high tech equipment, not only high tech for that matter. Even X-Ray departments aren't adequately manned during nominal unsocial hours let alone the likes of MRI scanners. Somehow I don't see that increasing under Tory governance unless they outsourced such provision.

'And thanks to ohso for yet another example of Tory's NHS outsourcing. I expect there'll be much, much more under a Tory hegemony.

[onebuttonmonkey]

Just untrue. This is all taken into account in the university funding model
.

Of course the debts are sold at below book level: what on earth would you expect?

The entire point is a large slice of it will never be paid back. It is a generous scheme. Far less regressive than the previous system, with better access outcomes. We have run concurrently the the old system in Scotland. It is running their Universities into the ground and they hav worse access.

We could do better and put in place what Browne originally proposed, but the current system is actually a good one.

As for rent controls, they are a disaster evertime tried. Which US cities are you claiming they are a success in? New York? San Francisco? They are a nightmare. See that well known rightwing nutjob, Paul Krugman


http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opini ... ffair.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That Krugman article is from 2000 so you're clearly living in the past et cetera. Sorry - couldn't resist.

I've friends that can only afford to stay in San Francisco because of rent controls. Who are they disastrous for, Hugo? Not the people who depend on them to be able to live. And again, at least arguing for them raises the possibility we may rebalance a horrendously skewed housing and rental market. If we don't build more houses, we have to look at how to control rent.

On student loans, it's not the write-down per se, it's the amount it's sold off for less than the worth - a punitive loss compared to the cost. Maybe there's a better paying model, but I haven't seen it detaled, and I see my friends kids ending up with £60,000 of debt. I'm sure when the working class kids are taken to court for non-payment, they'll be comforting themselves with the case that the system that beggared them is less regressive than some others. It isn't a generous scheme, it's a way of offsetting cost on the books that, since raising the fees, has only gotten costlier.

Seriously, I take the point that access has dropped in Scotland and I also agree that some of the arguments against loans are a little shortsighted - but for me the downside of the loan system more than outweighs the growing debt and the deferred cost of unrepayable amounts of debt. (I'd like to say more on that, but ask me in a few weeks when I've changed my job and can!) Similarly, it's necessary to push for the left - the idea of changing the model, not least because accommodation can be made with it.

I may be what's considered exceptionally lefty these days, but I recognise we need to apply principles in new ways. I don't blame Corbyn for a lightness of detail or for pushing for more than he'll be able to get, though. It's how the right managed to move the goalposts so far.

You think the basic economics Krugman there explains has changed?

It hasn't.

You won't find economists of left or right who favour price fixing. None.

The people it is disastrous for are those other people priced out of San Francisco because of want of stock. Want of stock created by controls. Read the Krugman piece. Every time you fix prices it creates a shortage. One of the few things every economist agrees on.

But yeah, great for a minority (ie your friends). Just not overall. Once introduced they are hard to get rid of because there is a minority of (lucky) beneficiaries.

University education is not free. The beneficiaries are a minority, who are disproportionate ly both the children of the wealthy and people who will be wealthy. There is nothing leftwing about a rightwing policy of benefitting the rich through free university education paid for by everyone.

I really am off, but first: (a) I was joking in the first line, Hugo. Jo-king.

Secondly, the lack of housing stock is because of the way the free market fails housing. There's more than rent controls at issue with the building of new property and in making opportunities available. Our housing market now has more houses in fewer hands than at any time in 20 years. It's come while rents have spiralled - where I live, they're 30% higher than five years ago, despite low interest rates. A lack of controls hasn't encouraged new builds, either. There's a huge knot of problems that might make rent controls unnecessary, but in the absence of addressing them, a cruder implement will have to suffice.

Lastly, you're conflating the time of free education with benefitting the middle class partly because there was a more entrenched class system and fewer opportunities anywhere for working class kids, educated or not. It's not the free education system that saw fewer working class kids go to college for decades. The rise of the middle class of late has gone alongside the institution of an economic apartheid of unpaid internships across the professions, now, so even today's access is gated after university. There was undoubtedly a different social set when i went to University in 1990 - the first year of loans - than those coming in when I left after my second stint only ten years later. Or rather, the poorer kids couldn't afford to be seen out as much.

The beneficiaries of free education now withold that at a time when social mobility - that holy grail of spun-word Blairism - has never been lower and when sink estates and sneering at chavs has built barricades around swathes of the population - not coincidentally those who might once have voted Labour. Aspirational politics should empower them to be included in the chance for education, even if they don't take that. And plenty of ordinary working class people benefitted, too. It's a cost that benefits us all, and I don't begrudge those better off taking it when it can literally change lives for those less fortunate than themselves.

[ohsocynical]

I feel as if I'm the only person who has read Alistair Campbell's diaries and remembers Alistair's shock when Blair said, 'I'm not Labour.'

[Tubby Isaacs]

Again, I think the SNP give some clues on rail renationalization- ie they avoid it for as long as possible.

If it were the easy anti-Red Tories gain people think it is, why would they do it?

[ohsocynical]

... Re-nationalisation of bus services would have a much wider, positive impact than re-nationalisation of the railways, allowing councils to use profits from city routes to subsidise rural routes, instead of limited council tax funds. The rural poor are neglected because they are outnumbered by Tory voting neighbours. Our country is turning into a complete basket case because political policy is skewed toward pandering to the niche needs of a handful of middle class, middle England swing voters.

Sounds like you're advocating public transport, Willow.

Labour had a good policy on buses at the last election, with stronger regulation that should have reduced the margins of the bus operators. A

But what was noticeable was that councils could have already gone down this route already, but weren't. I think you have to factor in what councils actually have the capacity to do and want to do. You get the same thing with Education, where the left want everything put back in LAs as if that'll solve everything. Lots of councils don't even want the schools they have. Better to seek to think in terms of what they will do, and work around that, in my view.

I believe Reading Council stills owns and runs their buses.

[Temulkar]

Just untrue. This is all taken into account in the university funding model
.

Of course the debts are sold at below book level: what on earth would you expect?

The entire point is a large slice of it will never be paid back. It is a generous scheme. Far less regressive than the previous system, with better access outcomes. We have run concurrently the the old system in Scotland. It is running their Universities into the ground and they hav worse access.

We could do better and put in place what Browne originally proposed, but the current system is actually a good one.

As for rent controls, they are a disaster evertime tried. Which US cities are you claiming they are a success in? New York? San Francisco? They are a nightmare. See that well known rightwing nutjob, Paul Krugman


http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opini ... ffair.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That Krugman article is from 2000 so you're clearly living in the past et cetera. Sorry - couldn't resist.

I've friends that can only afford to stay in San Francisco because of rent controls. Who are they disastrous for, Hugo? Not the people who depend on them to be able to live. And again, at least arguing for them raises the possibility we may rebalance a horrendously skewed housing and rental market. If we don't build more houses, we have to look at how to control rent.

On student loans, it's not the write-down per se, it's the amount it's sold off for less than the worth - a punitive loss compared to the cost. Maybe there's a better paying model, but I haven't seen it detaled, and I see my friends kids ending up with £60,000 of debt. I'm sure when the working class kids are taken to court for non-payment, they'll be comforting themselves with the case that the system that beggared them is less regressive than some others. It isn't a generous scheme, it's a way of offsetting cost on the books that, since raising the fees, has only gotten costlier.

Seriously, I take the point that access has dropped in Scotland and I also agree that some of the arguments against loans are a little shortsighted - but for me the downside of the loan system more than outweighs the growing debt and the deferred cost of unrepayable amounts of debt. (I'd like to say more on that, but ask me in a few weeks when I've changed my job and can!) Similarly, it's necessary to push for the left - the idea of changing the model, not least because accommodation can be made with it.

I may be what's considered exceptionally lefty these days, but I recognise we need to apply principles in new ways. I don't blame Corbyn for a lightness of detail or for pushing for more than he'll be able to get, though. It's how the right managed to move the goalposts so far.

You think the basic economics Krugman there explains has changed?

It hasn't.

You won't find economists of left or right who favour price fixing. None.

The people it is disastrous for are those other people priced out of San Francisco because of want of stock. Want of stock created by controls. Read the Krugman piece. Every time you fix prices it creates a shortage. One of the few things every economist agrees on.

But yeah, great for a minority (ie your friends). Just not overall. Once introduced they are hard to get rid of because there is a minority of (lucky) beneficiaries.

University education is not free. The beneficiaries are a minority, who are disproportionate ly both the children of the wealthy and people who will be wealthy. There is nothing leftwing about a rightwing policy of benefitting the rich through free university education paid for by everyone.

It's called a universal benefit because it benefits us all, of course the scions of the rich will benefit, as did the current cohort of incompetents. The rest of us benefit far more which outweighs the minuscule cost of Tarquin and Leonora's kids getting something for their taxes. At the same time it is more socially cohesive.

[Tubby Isaacs]

It's called a universal benefit because it benefits us all, of course the scions of the rich will benefit, as did the current cohort of incompetents. The rest of us benefit far more which outweighs the minuscule cost of Tarquin and Leonora's kids getting something for their taxes. At the same time it is more socially cohesive.

Try and raise £10bn of extra taxes for it. Chances are you won't be able to. And the same will happen as happens in Scotland- you'll be taking money out of targeted spending on the poor.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/t ... -1-3159791" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And it's not a universal benefit if the majority of people go nowhere near a university.

If you can raise the money, spend it on schools which benefit far more people directly, and benefit society indirectly just as universities do.

[ohsocynical]

Cartoon:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Tubby Isaacs]

Sounds like you're advocating public transport, Willow.

Labour had a good policy on buses at the last election, with stronger regulation that should have reduced the margins of the bus operators. A

But what was noticeable was that councils could have already gone down this route already, but weren't. I think you have to factor in what councils actually have the capacity to do and want to do. You get the same thing with Education, where the left want everything put back in LAs as if that'll solve everything. Lots of councils don't even want the schools they have. Better to seek to think in terms of what they will do, and work around that, in my view.

I believe Reading Council stills owns and runs their buses.

Looks like they do, interesting.

TfL owns the Johnson lardbuses, but that's because they are so awful the companies didn't want them. Reading's buses look fine.

[utopiandreams]

... Seriously, I take the point that access has dropped in Scotland and I also agree that some of the arguments against loans are a little shortsighted...

But university access has increased far beyond acceptable measures in my book, obm. I have no statistics to back this up but believe Europeans have a better balance of undergraduates and apprentices, both in terms of respect or social standing and of quantity. As others have already suggested degrees are now requested where unnecessary.

Having said that I notice Cameron has reverted to type and speaks up when playing at statesman. It's only when out of the country he mention things like the quality of apprenticeships. At the dispatch box he only mentions his target 3m and never their standard. Never mind the quality feel the width is all he has in parliament and even then he has to fudge the figures.

Sorry if a little unclear but I'm being cajoled to hurry up and press Submit.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Lastly, you're conflating the time of free education with benefitting the middle class partly because there was a more entrenched class system and fewer opportunities anywhere for working class kids, educated or not. It's not the free education system that saw fewer working class kids go to college for decades. The rise of the middle class of late has gone alongside the institution of an economic apartheid of unpaid internships across the professions, now, so even today's access is gated after university. There was undoubtedly a different social set when i went to University in 1990 - the first year of loans - than those coming in when I left after my second stint only ten years later. Or rather, the poorer kids couldn't afford to be seen out as much.

That's not right.

https://www.tes.co.uk/news/school-news/ ... ail-behind" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Record numbers of pupils on free school meals are aiming to go to university this year – but they are still half as likely to apply as their more privileged peers.

Figures from university admissions body Ucas show that 14,230 students on free school meals in England applied for a place on a degree course from this autumn, compared with 8,720 six years ago.

This is the highest number yet recorded and represents a rise from 10.5 per cent of the total 18-year-olds receiving free school meals who applied in 2006, to 17.9 per cent who had submitted their application by the 24 March deadline this year.

[ScarletGas]

As I said the other day, there was basically a Mandelson-orchestrated attempted coup in the hours and days immediately after the GE.

Whatever happens on Sept 11 (oo-err) it has basically blown up right in their faces.

This is good news.

That is Blairites under the bed rubbish.

After such a catastrophic defeat, what would you expect the likes of Mandleson to say?

"Ed was right to reject the approach we adopted in 97, 2001 and 2005?"

He and the others who had kept quiet (and largely they had) would have had to have been saints.

Talk of a coup is rubbish. Yes people like me wanted to draw a line under the 2015 disaster and try something else. Lots seem to agree. Save that the "something else" seems to have more relation to Eric Heffer's worldview than anything electable.

As you gleefully repeatedly say: there just are not that many Blairites in the Labour party.

Serious point: it was the alternative and the hope that won Blair the election in 1997, not how left or right he was. Those on the right still didn't trust him, despite pledges he needn't have made. He undoubtedly made the party more palatable, but the idea that being rightist was key to that has been added in retrospect - he was still publically saying we shouldn't be ashamed of our socialism in 1994, for example.

http://www.britishpoliticalspeech.org/s ... speech=200" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The reality was never going to be as popular as the idea of him, but still, he lost votes at every further election and Brown more still. Miliband didn't reject that approach so much as was considered to the left of what was acceptable by an entrenched and further right press - the fact the Tories can steal so many of his ideas and announce them just goes to show the perception of leftness was not equal to the actuality of it.

I seriously think that, if we want to win, we should start with what we stand for and then persuade people of it. We have tried to follow the focus groups and slavishly been in thrall to a very Westminster version of public opinion - and even Miliband did his fair share of that. If we can't persuade people of the value of our offering, sobeit. But we should have something people want on offer, but we have to also lead that, not say, "what do you want us to be?" and expect that to win. A real change isn't about left or right but about trying to shape ourselves and lead with ideas, not follow a narrowly framed version of public opinion into oblivion.

Reverting back to the comments regarding Mandleson.

On the question of what did we expect him to say?

Well I for one would have preferred if he said little or nothing at all rather than appearing on every show going (with the possible exception of Strictly) doing a pretty effective impression of the spectre at the feast. Did it help one jot?

I must admit my judgement is even more coloured by the actor playing him in Coalition (Mark Gatiss) also plays Mycroft, Sherlock Holmes scheming/Malevolent brother in the BBC series. Not a huge jump in character I would suggest.

You are entitled to your opinion,that's mine............................

[Temulkar]

It's called a universal benefit because it benefits us all, of course the scions of the rich will benefit, as did the current cohort of incompetents. The rest of us benefit far more which outweighs the minuscule cost of Tarquin and Leonora's kids getting something for their taxes. At the same time it is more socially cohesive.

Try and raise £10bn of extra taxes for it. Chances are you won't be able to. And the same will happen as happens in Scotland- you'll be taking money out of targeted spending on the poor.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/t ... -1-3159791" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And it's not a universal benefit if the majority of people go nowhere near a university.

If you can raise the money, spend it on schools which benefit far more people directly, and benefit society indirectly just as universities do.

If we move to something along the lines of a Finnish model, and cut tax breaks for rich old public schools, then free university education is only part of the solution, it has to be done with investment and renationalising our schools and colleges. The private sector waste in the schools sector at the moment seems phenomenal - though I havent seen any figures. Whether we go back to an LEA model, or something more regional for oversight, I don't know, but I am damn sure it will save millions for education.

Free Uni is bollucks on its own, I agree, it has to be part of an integrated education system that starts at primary and follows students to the end of their education, whether in a uni a technical coll, or real apprenticeship.

[rebeccariots2]

Serious point: it was the alternative and the hope that won Blair the election in 1997, not how left or right he was. Those on the right still didn't trust him, despite pledges he needn't have made. He undoubtedly made the party more palatable, but the idea that being rightist was key to that has been added in retrospect - he was still publically saying we shouldn't be ashamed of our socialism in 1994, for example.

http://www.britishpoliticalspeech.org/s ... speech=200" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The reality was never going to be as popular as the idea of him, but still, he lost votes at every further election and Brown more still. Miliband didn't reject that approach so much as was considered to the left of what was acceptable by an entrenched and further right press - the fact the Tories can steal so many of his ideas and announce them just goes to show the perception of leftness was not equal to the actuality of it.

I seriously think that, if we want to win, we should start with what we stand for and then persuade people of it. We have tried to follow the focus groups and slavishly been in thrall to a very Westminster version of public opinion - and even Miliband did his fair share of that. If we can't persuade people of the value of our offering, sobeit. But we should have something people want on offer, but we have to also lead that, not say, "what do you want us to be?" and expect that to win. A real change isn't about left or right but about trying to shape ourselves and lead with ideas, not follow a narrowly framed version of public opinion into oblivion.

I cannot give a very coherent, well argued, intellectual response to this as am very tired and a bit headachey after work. But to the bit in bold ... I can give a gut reaction from a door stepper which is ... I will heave a sigh of relief if whoever is the new leader and their team adopts that as their approach. I am fed up of trying to sell small tinkering technical adjustments or repeals of things to people. At our last campaign meeting we all agreed that we more or less ignored the national message at 2015 because - for the most part - it wasn't what people were bringing up and it wasn't easy to introduce or explain. It is very hard work trying to engage on that basis ... like reading the small print to people when they only have 10 seconds to spare. It was too sanitised and removed from proper everyday life (I get a vision of sofas and chairs still covered in plastic so they won't get dirty but which are unattractive and you don't want to sit on as a result). It would feel and be far preferable to be talking big stuff and ideas - even if they aren't finessed or comfortable. We need some bold brush strokes next time round ... not pointillism.

[SpinningHugo]

That Krugman article is from 2000 so you're clearly living in the past et cetera. Sorry - couldn't resist.

I've friends that can only afford to stay in San Francisco because of rent controls. Who are they disastrous for, Hugo? Not the people who depend on them to be able to live. And again, at least arguing for them raises the possibility we may rebalance a horrendously skewed housing and rental market. If we don't build more houses, we have to look at how to control rent.

On student loans, it's not the write-down per se, it's the amount it's sold off for less than the worth - a punitive loss compared to the cost. Maybe there's a better paying model, but I haven't seen it detaled, and I see my friends kids ending up with £60,000 of debt. I'm sure when the working class kids are taken to court for non-payment, they'll be comforting themselves with the case that the system that beggared them is less regressive than some others. It isn't a generous scheme, it's a way of offsetting cost on the books that, since raising the fees, has only gotten costlier.

Seriously, I take the point that access has dropped in Scotland and I also agree that some of the arguments against loans are a little shortsighted - but for me the downside of the loan system more than outweighs the growing debt and the deferred cost of unrepayable amounts of debt. (I'd like to say more on that, but ask me in a few weeks when I've changed my job and can!) Similarly, it's necessary to push for the left - the idea of changing the model, not least because accommodation can be made with it.

I may be what's considered exceptionally lefty these days, but I recognise we need to apply principles in new ways. I don't blame Corbyn for a lightness of detail or for pushing for more than he'll be able to get, though. It's how the right managed to move the goalposts so far.

You think the basic economics Krugman there explains has changed?

It hasn't.

You won't find economists of left or right who favour price fixing. None.

The people it is disastrous for are those other people priced out of San Francisco because of want of stock. Want of stock created by controls. Read the Krugman piece. Every time you fix prices it creates a shortage. One of the few things every economist agrees on.

But yeah, great for a minority (ie your friends). Just not overall. Once introduced they are hard to get rid of because there is a minority of (lucky) beneficiaries.

University education is not free. The beneficiaries are a minority, who are disproportionate ly both the children of the wealthy and people who will be wealthy. There is nothing leftwing about a rightwing policy of benefitting the rich through free university education paid for by everyone.

I really am off, but first: (a) I was joking in the first line, Hugo. Jo-king.

Secondly, the lack of housing stock is because of the way the free market fails housing. There's more than rent controls at issue with the building of new property and in making opportunities available. Our housing market now has more houses in fewer hands than at any time in 20 years. It's come while rents have spiralled - where I live, they're 30% higher than five years ago, despite low interest rates. A lack of controls hasn't encouraged new builds, either. There's a huge knot of problems that might make rent controls unnecessary, but in the absence of addressing them, a cruder implement will have to suffice.

Lastly, you're conflating the time of free education with benefitting the middle class partly because there was a more entrenched class system and fewer opportunities anywhere for working class kids, educated or not. It's not the free education system that saw fewer working class kids go to college for decades. The rise of the middle class of late has gone alongside the institution of an economic apartheid of unpaid internships across the professions, now, so even today's access is gated after university. There was undoubtedly a different social set when i went to University in 1990 - the first year of loans - than those coming in when I left after my second stint only ten years later. Or rather, the poorer kids couldn't afford to be seen out as much.

The beneficiaries of free education now withold that at a time when social mobility - that holy grail of spun-word Blairism - has never been lower and when sink estates and sneering at chavs has built barricades around swathes of the population - not coincidentally those who might once have voted Labour. Aspirational politics should empower them to be included in the chance for education, even if they don't take that. And plenty of ordinary working class people benefitted, too. It's a cost that benefits us all, and I don't begrudge those better off taking it when it can literally change lives for those less fortunate than themselves.

Misconceived anecdotes.

First rents have not spiralled. (They may have in particular locations - not including London.) The ONS data, which for all its flaws is the best we have got, shows rents rising at the same rate as prices generally.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/hpi/index ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Second, the stuff about the working class going to university is just bizarre given your concession on access. Far far more working class kids go to uni, both in absolute and % terms than in 1990. And the figures are getting better, not worse. The utopia of Scotland is the failed area.


Free University education was a middle class scam. No serious party should be proposing to go back to the bad old days.

I note with despair that Burnham is proposing a commission on a graduate tax.

Andy mate: we have had half a dozen which have looked at it. It is dumb and unworkable.

[Eric_WLothian]

Again, I think the SNP give some clues on rail renationalization- ie they avoid it for as long as possible.

If it were the easy anti-Red Tories gain people think it is, why would they do it?

They can't, (without the connivance of Westminster). They are constrained by the Railways Act 1993, which is reserved:

The current legal framework puts a number of constraints on how the Scottish Ministers might enable the provision of rail services in Scotland. For example-
•The Railways Act 1993 contains provision to prevent public sector operation of rail passenger franchises. The bodies to which the prohibition applies include the Scottish Ministers, all UK government departments and all UK local authorities. However, there is no corresponding statutory ban on foreign public sector bodies being able to bid for and operate UK franchises.
•The Railways Act 1993 requires, for all practical purposes, that rail passenger services should only be provided through a franchise. The Scottish Parliament does not have the power to amend the Railways Act 1993 in this regard to provide otherwise.

http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/rai ... s-act-1993