[Travel] Mick lynch

[GT49er]

One of the interesting things about party conference season is how Labour is always portrayed as being at conflict and the Tories as unified when it's nothing of the sort. The Labour conference is where policy is debated and decided, therefore of course there will be robust discussion, disagreements, and different points of view, whereas the Tory conference is just self-congratulatory jingoism. Labour's relatively democratic approach to decision making actually unites them as a party far more than the "internal war" the media likes to portray, and far more than the Tories on most issues. The Tories just do it in private (or they used to anyway, not so much anymore).

Welcome to the 1980s!

 

[FatSuperman]

I'm sure I'm not alone on here but from very modest beginnings I have worked hard and accumulated a better life than I was born with.
Are you suggesting I might be happy to then lose a large part of it in the name of some type of communism or alike?

I've also worked very hard and continue to do so, to provide for my family - including my aging and struggling parents, and my sisters. But none of that success is going to be taken away from me, or diluted by a non-Tory government. We are all massively worse off since the Tories came to power. I might be doing pretty well, but it was NOTHING to do with the Tories. If they hadn't been in power, no doubt I'll have been doing better, and certainly wouldn't have to be providing so much support to others.

Your success was your making, and it doesn't go away when the Tories bugger off. Unless of course you're a PPE skank, or some other Tory stooge basically defrauding everyone else.

 

[Comrade Sam]

The government figure for the cost of paying 10% to every public sector worker has been gospel on TV today. Apparently it's £23 billion or £1000 for every household. Except that it isn't. Whilst that is 10 % of public sector pay, they'd already promised 3%, so the bill is £18 billion. Then 30% will come back as tax, so just over £12 billion. Then we have a graduated tax system, so many won't pay any and the rest will depend on their income and tax bracket. So no most people won't have to pay £1000 per household. Also this government is happy to spu*k that amount on the military, tax breaks at the top, cross rail etc. And contrary to what Sunak, Hunt and Starmer claim, capitalism is built on nations borrowing money and deficits. Unless people have money to spend, then there is no economy or tax revenue.

 

[BenGarfield]

The government figure for the cost of paying 10% to every public sector worker has been gospel on TV today. Apparently it's £23 billion or £1000 for every household. Except that it isn't. Whilst that is 10 % of public sector pay, they'd already promised 3%, so the bill is £18 billion. Then 30% will come back as tax, so just over £12 billion. Then we have a graduated tax system, so many won't pay any and the rest will depend on their income and tax bracket. So no most people won't have to pay £1000 per household. Also this government is happy to spu*k that amount on the military, tax breaks at the top, cross rail etc. And contrary to what Sunak, Hunt and Starmer claim, capitalism is built on nations borrowing money and deficits. Unless people have money to spend, then there is no economy or tax revenue.

Whilst I sympathise with your left wing stance over the inequities of tthe current system and critisise Sunak, Hunt and Starmer, unfortunately you fall into the same neo-liberal trap that they do. You state that "capitalism is built on nations borrowing money and deficits. Unless people have money to spend, then there is no economy or tax revenue." Firstly a nation such as the UK with its own sovereign currency does not have to "borrow" anything in the sense that a household does, because it, and its agents , the banks, create money out of keystrokes on a computer, to finance its spending, and does not need tax, therefore, to fund its spending. However, I do agree that the goverments agreeing to the railway workers and nurses just demands is good for the economy overall because it will maintain overall demand.

 

[BadFish]

The government figure for the cost of paying 10% to every public sector worker has been gospel on TV today. Apparently it's £23 billion or £1000 for every household. Except that it isn't. Whilst that is 10 % of public sector pay, they'd already promised 3%, so the bill is £18 billion. Then 30% will come back as tax, so just over £12 billion. Then we have a graduated tax system, so many won't pay any and the rest will depend on their income and tax bracket. So no most people won't have to pay £1000 per household. Also this government is happy to spu*k that amount on the military, tax breaks at the top, cross rail etc. And contrary to what Sunak, Hunt and Starmer claim, capitalism is built on nations borrowing money and deficits. Unless people have money to spend, then there is no economy or tax revenue.

The pay rise will also put some money in the pockets of people. This will be spent and go a small way to stimulate the economy and promote some growth and increase tax intake again.

I am happy to be corrected but this austerity 2.0 nonsense is a busted flush. Austrity 1.0 didn't work (and arguably lead you here). Surely it is time for the UK to try something else??

 

[Comrade Sam]

Whilst I sympathise with your left wing stance over the inequities of tthe current system and critisise Sunak, Hunt and Starmer, unfortunately you fall into the same neo-liberal trap that they do. You state that "capitalism is built on nations borrowing money and deficits. Unless people have money to spend, then there is no economy or tax revenue." Firstly a nation such as the UK with its own sovereign currency does not have to "borrow" anything in the sense that a household does, because it, and its agents , the banks, create money out of keystrokes on a computer, to finance its spending, and does not need tax, therefore, to fund its spending. However, I do agree that the goverments agreeing to the railway workers and nurses just demands is good for the economy overall because it will maintain overall demand.

Banks to not create wealth. That's not how capitalism works. Wealth is created by people actually working, otherwise they'd be no need for anyone to work under capitalism or pay taxes - banks could just make it. Sri Lanka showed that if you stop taxing the profits the rich gain from exploiting workers, when a pandemic stops people from working - a country runs out of money and it all goes to sh*t. Neo liberalism thrives on debt and people servicing it, but it can't just magic up wealth.

 

[schmunk]

. Neo liberalism thrives on debt and people servicing it, but it can't just magic up wealth.

It can when you have BenGarfield's Magic Money Tree.

 

[BenGarfield]

Banks to not create wealth. That's not how capitalism works. Wealth is created by people actually working, otherwise they'd be no need for anyone to work under capitalism or pay taxes - banks could just make it. Sri Lanka showed that if you stop taxing the profits the rich gain from exploiting workers, when a pandemic stops people from working - a country runs out of money and it all goes to sh*t. Neo liberalism thrives on debt and people servicing it, but it can't just magic up wealth.

A country with its own fiat currency cannot go bust. Its not like a household. You cant magic up the goods and services that money enables a nation to have but indeed you can magic up the money itself - thats how our economy works. Where do you think people get their money if not from banks or the government? - there is no other source. Banks create money when they issue loans. Central government creates money when it spends. There is no direct link in the UK exchequer between receipts from taxation, the issueing of bonds (so called borrowing - which isnt borrowing at all). Tax receipts are destroyed, and new money is created by the exchequer every day. Even a fully socialist country with its own fiat currency would operate on the same principles unless it decided to fix its currency to gold or some other commodity.

 

[BenGarfield]

It can when you have BenGarfield's Magic Money Tree.

Can you give me specific evidence that what I have said is untrue - because I can certainly point you to the research evidence that it is?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Banks to not create wealth. That's not how capitalism works. Wealth is created by people actually working, otherwise they'd be no need for anyone to work under capitalism or pay taxes - banks could just make it. Sri Lanka showed that if you stop taxing the profits the rich gain from exploiting workers, when a pandemic stops people from working - a country runs out of money and it all goes to sh*t. Neo liberalism thrives on debt and people servicing it, but it can't just magic up wealth.

I'm told that wealth is taking something, calling it something else, and selling it for a profit. I'm told we don't live in a zero sum economy.

That's maybe.

In the UK we now seem to be taking something, f***ing it up, and handing it over to Big Boys, for a loss. Till there is nothing left.

 

[beorhthelm]

I'm told that wealth is taking something, calling it something else, and selling it for a profit. I'm told we don't live in a zero sum economy.

That's maybe.

In the UK we now seem to be taking something, f***ing it up, and handing it over to Big Boys, for a loss. Till there is nothing left.

wealth is the stuff we hold onto that has value, our homes, pensions, savings, businesses. its the product of labour we either saved or invested.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

wealth is the stuff we hold onto that has value, our homes, pensions, savings, businesses. its the product of labour we either saved or invested.

Some wealth is stolen. In fact, a lot of wealth is stolen. £11 million yachts for example.

 

[nicko31]

Right wing tabloids having a go accusing him of his losing his shit yesterday.

He didn't, he just called it out. These days, the Beeb is increasingly taking its lead from the likes of the Sun and the Mail. Love the Beeb but they've been politically infiltrated

 

[Bodian]

Deeds to my house in the post to you, comrade.

a simple "no", would suffice

His deeds would be far better than a 'no'. Just take them - after all, you have thousands of witnesses to his statement that he's posted them to you!

Mind you, what with the strikes, it might be a while till they get to you!

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Right wing tabloids having a go accusing him of his losing his shit yesterday.

He didn't, he just called it out. These days, the Beeb is increasingly taking its lead from the likes of the Sun and the Mail. Love the Beeb but they've been politically infiltrated

If the right accuse the BBC of being on the left and vice versa, I would say they are doing a pretty good job

 

[wellquickwoody]

I was called one last week, took it as a badge of honour which flummoxed the person using it as an insult.

But is that not just being a little facetious? Possibly being someone with a very comfortable lifestyle, telling those with a relatively normal lifestyle to give up a chunk of their income/wealth to help others less fortunate. All safe in the knowledge that if both you and the normal income person give up a similar sum of money then you will still be comfortable whilst they may now be feeling the pinch? Easy to be charitable in those circumstances.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

The tories are clearly trying to create a narrative of Political strikes to try and damage Labour's current position in the polls.

They see themselves as potential beneficiaries of a long drawn out strike.
I suspect this will backfire quite spectacularly.

Sunak is no Thatcher and Lynch is far more savvy than Scargill.
The Parliamentary Labour party have cut many of the old links with the Unions

The only folk falling for that type of crap are voters who wouldn't vote any other way anyway.

 

[nicko31]

The tories are clearly trying to create a narrative of Political strikes to try and damage Labour's current position in the polls.

They see themselves as potential beneficiaries of a long drawn out strike.
I suspect this will backfire quite spectacularly.

Sunak is no Thatcher and Lynch is far more savvy than Scargill.
The Parliamentary Labour party have cut many of the old links with the Unions

The only folk falling for that type of crap are voters who wouldn't vote any other way anyway.

1) They f**ked up with their mini-budget
2) They continue to impose trade sanctions on our country for ideological reasons
3) They embarked in huge waste via crony contracts and various botched schemes.

They've now boxed themselves into a corner and are on austerity 2.0, the markets have them on report

As ever its always someone else's fault. Ban strikes, that will show em...

 

[Simster]

Right wing tabloids having a go accusing him of his losing his shit yesterday.

He didn't, he just called it out. These days, the Beeb is increasingly taking its lead from the likes of the Sun and the Mail. Love the Beeb but they've been politically infiltrated

Your inability to take off your red tinted spectacles does your argument absolutely no favours. Yes I'm sure the tabloids have gone overboard on him because God knows he has been fantastic in the face of Tory-sympathetic bleating. But to suggest yesterday that "he just called it out" is absolute bollocks. You're completely wrong - it was a dreadful interview, although it is the only time I've ever seen him on TV where I can honestly say that.

Madeley is embarrassing, but on this he was right. When the whole point of the line of questioning was that the strikes are designed to disrupt during the holiday season, what was the point of Lynch glibly responding that Christmas starts on Christmas Eve? That's not a good enough response, and it isn't calling anything out.

The correct answer was that the deal being offered is a joke, amounts to a 14% pay cut in two years, and in any case has a string of conditions attached that neither his members nor the general public would be happy with. And furthermore, train companies are still allowed to raise fairs by the RPI which is being passed on to greedy executives and shareholders all the while the people doing the work are being told to take a pay cut.

 

[Wardy's twin]

Your inability to take off your red tinted spectacles does your argument absolutely no favours. Yes I'm sure the tabloids have gone overboard on him because God knows he has been fantastic in the face of Tory-sympathetic bleating. But to suggest yesterday that "he just called it out" is absolute bollocks. You're completely wrong - it was a dreadful interview, although it is the only time I've ever seen him on TV where I can honestly say that.

Madeley is embarrassing, but on this he was right. When the whole point of the line of questioning was that the strikes are designed to disrupt during the holiday season, what was the point of Lynch glibly responding that Christmas starts on Christmas Eve? That's not a good enough response, and it isn't calling anything out.

The correct answer was that the deal being offered is a joke, amounts to a 14% pay cut in two years, and in any case has a string of conditions attached that neither his members nor the general public would be happy with. And furthermore, train companies are still allowed to raise fairs by the RPI which is being passed on to greedy executives and shareholders all the while the people doing the work are being told to take a pay cut.

I agree wit your answer but maybe his glib response was to a set of inane questions. You don't strike if the strike is not going to hurt you strike to cause some pain and then hopefully those suffering turn on those who are the root cause of the pain , the government who keep undermining a deal. Difficult to say that but people should work it out themselves.