Earl Aelfheah

this idea that if workers have rights, that the economy suffers and business can't survive is ridiculously short sighted. You need a large middle class in order to have a successful economy, because they are not only your workers, but also your customers. Currently the state subsidises the wages employers don't pay. This comes from taxes levied on business and higher earners, so that the wages still get paid, only in the least rational, most inefficient manner.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think there are plenty of companies that could > easily pull out of the UK without diminishing > their market share... Sure, but actually the issue with many of these companies has been side stepping tax on profits made on sales in the UK. Anyway, we're kind of getting off the point. This idea that a mixed economy, for a role of the state in the provision of key public services and a fairer distribution of the countries wealth amounts to some sort of radical lefist extremism - well, I find it very dispiriting to be honest. They're views which would have been shared by many of the more moderate Conservative MPs in the eighties. We've swung so far to the right in recent decades and are aligning with the neo-con ideologues in the US, rather than with our more progressive, northern European neighbours. Brexit will no doubt accelerate this process.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The 'our government will...' bit is crap. JC and > JMcD are proper old school Marxist socialists - > they don't believe in entrepreneurs, or really in > the private sector at all. If you think that has > changed you're deluded. You think they're communists, who want to deliver a command economy? I seriously doubt it. I am not afraid of 'reds under the bed'. I suspect that they believe in regulating certain markets and an argument for state control of certain key industries such as health care, education and transport. The idea of a mixed economy, was not considered quite so extreme or heretical until pretty recently. Unfortunately we've swung to the right as a country and are moving closer to the dogmatic US model, rather than the more open minded and thoughtful Northern European one.

Interesting. I've no idea what it is I'm afraid, but do let us know when you find out.

By the way, I'm no fan of John McDonnell, but neither am I a fan of the economic dogma / market fundamentalism of many neo-conservatives.

In other words.. I'm sure that his view would be that low tax (fewer protections for the poorest, and poor public services, education, health care and housing), light regulation and 'flexible labour law' (i.e. low wages, precarious working conditions), are not good, either for the economy in aggregate, or the kind of society that we might want. One might argue that it's not really that good for innovation, aspiration or the kind of entrepreneurship one might want to encourage long term either.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The things that actually encourage wealth creation > among entrepreneurs are - low CGT, Low business > tax, light regulation, tax breaks on business > investment and flexible labour laws - now, what do > we think is going to be Labour's policy on > all/most of them? Yes, that encourage wealth creation 'among[st] entrepreneurs'. The fact that John McDonnell pointedly described wealth creators as "...the workers and the entrepreneurs" is notable. It's in stark contrast with the neo-con idea of trickle down economics, where there is no recognition of the value workers also create.

Why do you think it's crap? I think it's very pointed actually.. The wealth creators are the workers and the entrepreneurs.

Sure, I think the current first past the post system is not great.

It is surprising that the libdems are not doing better with things as they are.

This is about right: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-labour-six-things-to-avoid-electoral-armageddon-a7328736.html

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You know what, I'm actually really starting to > warm to Corbyn supporters. I mean how would we get > by without inspired political events such as this > little gem... > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/26/jeremy- > corbyns-supporters-have-been-writing-poems-about-h > im-and/ I think you've had a sense of humour failure.

TBH, the libdems should be the party of the liberal, urban 'blairites'. A real centrist party to the left of the Conservatives. Labour could then go back to representing the traditional working class.

To say that Corbyn is an extremist is hysterical imo. The most left wing policies he has is to build more social housing and renationalise the railways. There are people on the Conservative benches who would actually support both those things. You may not like him much, but he has a mandate from the party membership, so presumably reflects their views. The Labour party may not be in step with popular opinion right now. That's OK, people can decide not to vote Labour currently. Personally, I think it's quite good for democracy to have parties that are actually different from each other. Without choices, people end up feeling the whole political system is a stitch up between a homogeneous political and media class. People said they didn't want identikit, populist politicians - well polished and media trained... that they wanted to engage young people, that they wanted there to be a real choice. Well now there is a choice.

@rendelharris - well said.

Regardless of your view of Corbyn, people labelling him an 'extremist' is ridiculous.

He's not stupid but he is fatally flawed in a number of ways.

Awful. His behaviour post the Brexit vote should have finished him off politically imo. I'm amazed he's still on the front bench. Tit indeed. Titty mctitface

welcome back Louisa.

Sounds very dodgy - I would give him a wide birth.

The whole project has been an utter disgrace and I really hope that people get held to account for their roles in it.

Just found the link to Thameslink consultation page. They have provided a good station by station comparison spreadsheet. Looks like Denmark Hill will get an extra train. All now terminating at Blackfriars (if I've read it correctly). http://www.thameslinkrailway.com/your-journey/timetable-consultation/

Anyone know what's going to happen to Thameslink trains from Denmark Hill?

I think it's the same. Despite rising numbers of passengers, we've not seen any increase in the service for more than a decade (they have gone up and down in that time, but never above the levels they were originally at). So this part of London got absolutely nothing from LB works and associated disruption.

Well done Sajid Javid