[Politics] The Breakthrough Party.

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

If you're happy with the state of the high street now, then so be it. We need more small retailers, keeping money in local communities, not to big companies paying massive profits to shareholders overseas.

So you want the minimum wage kept low, or even abolished do you?

 

[beorhthelm]

...

The £16 minimum wage is the most eye catching. I personally don't believe it would cause businesses to collapse. Costs will rise, but people will have more money to pay for goods and services. It will certainly be inflationary, but I would take rampant inflation over rampant inequality every day of the week.
...

amounts to the same thing to the majority of the population, constant treadmill of pay rise, price rise, pay rise, price rise, and people are always behind the curve.

 

[Weststander]

I think all 4 "manifesto" points on the leaflet are morally right and represent sound policy.

Nationalisation, clearly needs to take place over a period of time. But the performance of key utilities has been so lamentable that I support new public bodies to be created to run these more effectively.

The £16 minimum wage is the most eye catching. I personally don't believe it would cause businesses to collapse. Costs will rise, but people will have more money to pay for goods and services. It will certainly be inflationary, but I would take rampant inflation over rampant inequality every day of the week.

I believe there is widespread support for all the measures on the leaflet. If not for the word socialism

Rampant inflation if unique to the UK at that future time, would cause the £ to collapse and the UK's key credit ratings would be downgraded heavily. Meaning that servicing the cost of government debt would instantly go through the roof. These things have international markets effects.

More nuanced solutions to poverty are required than just a blunt instrument.

Nationalisations - for various reasons I'd like to see this for the entire rail industry (it's a sham privatisation, the state pumps in 2/3's of its income), Royal Mail (its unsustainable, making huge losses) and water (literally vital industry, failed to invest in new water storage despite 20's years of intense droughts).

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

amounts to the same thing to the majority of the population, constant treadmill of pay rise, price rise, pay rise, price rise, and people are always behind the curve.

Which is the general argument against the concept of minimum wage. I don't buy it personally. Firstly, because inflation didn't suddenly become a problem when the minimum wage was first introduced and secondly because you're supposing that people will be taking their wage increases and buying non essential / luxury goods. I doubt it. People would be using it to pay bills and rent or mortgages, (and in part yes, to cover the inevitable increase in expenses)

Inequality and it's inexorable rise, is the biggest structural challenge our nation faces and this is the obvious place to start.

The Exchequer probably would do pretty well out of it as well.

 

[aolstudios]

What are taking about, CG? @aolstudios tried to derail the thread by saying we can't 4aise the minimum wage because antisemitism. Seems like it's mission accomplished as far as he's concerned.

How was I derailing the thread? I didn't mention the minimum wage, I'm pretty damned left wing myself (hence my disgust with the racism that's increasingly poisoned 'our side' in the last few years - the Brighton party positively oozed with it). This thread is about the breakthrough party, who enthusiastically back BDS, oppose Israel & want immediate withdrawal from NATO, ffs. It's just the SWP again

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Rampant inflation if unique to the UK at that future time, would cause the £ to collapse and the UK's key credit ratings would be downgraded heavily. Meaning that servicing the cost of government debt would instantly go through the roof. These things have international markets effects.

More nuanced solutions to poverty are required than just a blunt instrument.

Nationalisations - for various reasons I'd like to see this for the entire rail industry (it's a sham privatisation, the state pumps in 2/3's of its income), Royal Mail (its unsustainable, making huge losses) and water (literally vital industry, failed to invest in new water storage despite 20's years of intense droughts).

I suppose that's the issue.

Is inflation in the UK caused by unchecked consumer spending? No. It's international pressures such commodity prices and the effect brexit has had in us being able to fill vacancies.

The problems are a bit worse here, as we have a chaotic government seemingly hell bent on economic destruction, but fundamentally they are problems facing the whole world.

In this context the debt might find itself inflated away to a degree.

 

[Machiavelli]

The left is a very broad church, not helped by some thinking a particularly brand is more pure than the other.

Oh, yes, agreed. Very much with you on the purity issue.

What those who support Corbyn's left fail to acknowledge is that his brand of "left" is relatively new and somewhat alien to many in traditional working class communities.

They aren't interested in student politics and neither is the wider general public.

Why bring Corbyn into it? I didn't, and wouldn't want to. I've made my views on him pretty clear here on multiple occasions. It's all a bit of a distraction, isn't it. The crises are mounting, yet we can't have a proper conversation about them, because we're constantly having to revisit other issues.

 

[Weststander]

I suppose that's the issue.

Is inflation in the UK caused by unchecked consumer spending? No. It's international pressures such commodity prices and the effect brexit has had in us being able to fill vacancies.

The problems are a bit worse here, as we have a chaotic government seemingly hell bent on economic destruction, but fundamentally they are problems facing the whole world.

In this context the debt might find itself inflated away to a degree.

Inflation - there can be two or three causes, this one was triggered by international events. Some others in the past were caused by spending booms on the never never. The argument of the independent BoE and most economists is that the interest rate increases across the UK, US and Eurozone prevent secondary inflation, adding fuel to the fire, where everyone demands RPI matching wage increases, businesses in an upwards spiral increase prices to match.

I do understand that theory, but 100,000's may go bankrupt / lose their homes, along with a mental health crisis from the anguish of bills exceeding income.

 

[Bakero]

How was I detailing the thread? I didn't mention the minimum wage, I'm pretty damned left wing myself (hence my disgust with the racism that's increasingly poisoned 'our side' in the last few years - the Brighton party positively oozed with it). This thread is about the breakthrough party, who enthusiastically back BDS, oppose Israel & want immediate withdrawal from NATO, ffs. It's just the SWP again

Because everybody was discussing the idea of raising the minimum wage and out of nowhere you said "they hate jews" without any form of evidence.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Inflation - there can be two or three causes, this one was triggered by international events. Some others in the past were caused by spending booms on the never never. The argument of the independent BoE and most economists is that the interest rate increases across the UK, US and Eurozone prevent secondary inflation, adding fuel to the fire, where everyone demands RPI matching wage increases, businesses in an upwards spiral increase prices to match.

I do understand that theory, but 100,000's may go bankrupt / lose their homes, along with a mental health crisis from the anguish of bills exceeding income.

Surely high wage economies are a good thing? It's what politicians keep going on about. It's what much vaunted comparator countries like Norway do. Isn't that what we're trying to aim for? Now I guess when a country moves to a new culture like that, there are initial shocks. Probably people are going to use some of their new found money to buy things, but prices rise and an equilibrium is found.

A minimum wage rise, is likely to cause an equilibrium rather than a spiral, for this reason. What you're not doing is increasing the amount of money in the economy, you're redistributing it. So yes, the poorest 50% get more money to spend, but the richest 50% find, their dividends aren't what they were etc etc etc.

Remember the poorest would mostly going to see this money swallowed up in paying for mortgage, energy, food etc. It won't be rolex's for the poor, it would just mean less destitution.

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

So you want the minimum wage kept low, or even abolished do you?

I want it set at a rate is sustainable for small businesses and helps the local economy. Not one that just McDonalds, Primark and Walmart can sustain in a race to the bottom.

 

[Weststander]

Surely high wage economies are a good thing? It's what politicians keep going on about. It's what much vaunted comparator countries like Norway do. Isn't that what we're trying to aim for? Now I guess when a country moves to a new culture like that, there are initial shocks. Probably people are going to use some of their new found money to buy things, but prices rise and an equilibrium is found.

A minimum wage rise, is likely to cause an equilibrium rather than a spiral, for this reason. What you're not doing is increasing the amount of money in the economy, you're redistributing it. So yes, the poorest 50% get more money to spend, but the richest 50% find, their dividends aren't what they were etc etc etc.

Remember the poorest would mostly going to see this money swallowed up in paying for mortgage, energy, food etc. It won't be rolex's for the poor, it would just mean less destitution.

Norway (along with Abu Dhabi, Qatar etc) is a difficult one to bring into these discussions. They were a poor country, then had the carbons bonanza of finding oil and gas, giving them sovereign wealth funds now of $1.3t. Genuinely, they're set up economically for centuries to come.

[People with devious intent sometimes say why couldn't we have had that? Because with similar oil/gas reserves, there's was spread over a population 1/13th of the size, in addition they weren't crippled by WW1/WW2 public debt as a starting point. The clever move they did make was in 1972 to bring it all under state ownership].

A better comparison is with Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark. Their systems are based on higher personal tax rates for everyone on middle incomes upwards.

The median gross pay in Stockholm is 498,000 SEK or £36,600, taxes amount to 23.2%. Here that would be 21%. Day to day living things are far more expensive there (we've visited), but most people live in apartments.

A £50,270 salary here gives rise to taxes of 24%, that's 685,000 SEK taxed at 30.50%.

I think this boils down to the value of land/house prices, and rents, in most of England, is the killer.

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

Norway (along with Abu Dhabi, Qatar etc) is a difficult one to bring into these discussions. They were a poor country, then had the carbons bonanza of finding oil and gas, giving them sovereign wealth funds now of $1.3t. Genuinely, they're set up economically for centuries to come.

[People with devious intent sometimes say why couldn't we have had that? Because with similar oil/gas reserves, there's was spread over a population 1/13th of the size, in addition they weren't crippled by WW1/WW2 public debt as a starting point. The clever move they did make was in 1972 to bring it all under state ownership].

A better comparison is with Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark. Their systems are based on higher personal tax rates for everyone on middle incomes upwards.

The median gross pay in Stockholm is 498,000 SEK or £36,600, taxes amount to 23.2%. Here that would be 21%. Day to day living things are far more expensive there (we've visited), but most people live in apartments.

A £50,270 salary here gives rise to taxes of 24%, that's 685,000 SEK taxed at 30.50%.

I think this boils down to the value of land/house prices, and rents, in most of England, is the killer.

Note that "council tax" isn't a thing over there at all either. So in reality the amounts are quite a lot closer than people make out.

You also get paid days off by the government when your children are ill and parental leave. But we won't get into that!

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I want it set at a rate is sustainable for small businesses and helps the local economy. Not one that just McDonalds, Primark and Walmart can sustain in a race to the bottom.

Fair enough. Perhaps £16 an hour is too much. What about having two different minimum wages - one for small business (defined how?) and one for multinationals. I just checked and the current rate is around £10.40, which is a fair bit less than a domestic cleaner would earn in Faversham. The development rate (age 18-20) and young workers rate (17 and under) are much lower (around £7.50 and £5.30).

Separately I still don't understand how people paid a much higher wage by a small number of multinationals is a race to the bottom. Why would higher paid employees represent a 'bottom'*?

I also don't follow the logic that small businesses help the local economy while having such a fragile income they can pay only low wages. A rate that is sustainable for such fragile businesses is a low rate. So would you prefer no minimum wage rather than a higher one to help fragile small local businesses? It would seem logical in that context.

*When I was young and extremely left wing I thought that big business had the intention of growth by take-over, expansion and monopoly, whereupon we would cross an event horizon and become dependent, allowing the monolith companies to sack staff, crank up prices and lower wages, as part of a plan to control a now servile population. Rupert Murdoch. Lord Vesty. As I grew up I realized that successful business, as well as unions, want sustainable living, a sustainable model, and sustainable income. This means a public with disposable income. It is therefore in the interests of big business to pay its workforce well.

But...but it seems that in the UK, as opposed to Germany for example, there is a perverse attitude, even among 'working class' people that we mustn't be 'greedy' over wages or the whole economy will collapse. As I drifted somewhat to the right of my pseudo Marxists beginnings, I realized this is what is technically known as a load of old bollocks, and simply encourages industry in the UK to pay lower wages, demand longer hours, and cut corners over health and safety, simply because it can. It is time the workforce of this country grew some balls and started expecting more, and negotiating for more. If we can spaff billions shoring up the system during Covid without apparent harm, we can do better across the piece, especially in health and education. Pay people more. It won't tank the economy. Sub prime lending and other such tomfoolery is what tanls the economy.

 

[Audax]

This came through my door today.

View attachment 162718

I'm so out of touch at the moment, due to largely being in Ostrich mode for the past couple of years to try to protect my sanity, that I'd never even heard of them. I'm not active on Social media either, bar here, and it seems that's where they're concentrating their efforts so far.

Having a brief look around their website and their 'minifesto', I can't find anything there I disagree with.

No surprise there appears to be almost zero coverage of them in the mainstream media.

Anyone else here never heard of them before?

If you have heard of them. What are your thoughts?

Not heard of them either. Initial thoughts on the fourth of their listed policy aims:

- Nationalise energy - No. I don't think it's needed. The privatised energy sector has decent enough levels of competition, and we're largely free to choose which company we want to go with. Because of the competition we [are/were] seeing innovation and investment in the sector that we might not see from a nationalised sector (eg Octopus). What is desperately needed in the energy sector is reform on the wholesale side to rectify the factors that a) contributed to the energy pricing spike, and b) continues to overly encourage fossil fuel generation ahead of greener technologies. Pinning pricing according to whichever generation method is most expensive was never a good idea. Decouple the wholesale market from being dependent on any specific generation method and we would almost certainly see significant gains in the operation of the competitive retail market.

- Nationalise water - Absolutely yes. Privatised market is essentially just a series of regional monopolies. The lack of competition means there's zero incentive for the companies to innovate or invest, and that then allows them to very easily make the decision to maximise extracted value for shareholders and senior staff (via obnoxiously high bonuses). Privatisation of water is failure and should be brought back under public control.

- Nationalise "public transport" - where competition has failed to be established, absolutely yes. As with water, the vast majority of rail privatisation (all of it?) is simply a series of regional monopolies. Again, no incentive for the companies to spend anything more than they must on innovation or investment into the future. Bare minimum mentality is rife, so again I'd be favour of bringing back into public ownership. A lot of them already have been by default anyway. Privatisation of rail has failed.

 

[beorhthelm]

... If we can spaff billions shoring up the system during Covid without apparent harm, we can do better across the piece, especially in health and education. Pay people more. It won't tank the economy. Sub prime lending and other such tomfoolery is what tanls the economy.

no we couldnt shore up the system spaffing billions without harm. that spending caused the first wave of inflation. its forgotten because the second wave grabs the attention, we were nudging over 6% at start of 2022.

 

[beorhthelm]

Not heard of them either. Initial thoughts on the fourth of their listed policy aims:
...

there is another option, not explored enough. hold the assets and investment vehicle as a not-for-profit business, at arms length of government. do we really want the investment of water competing with defense or education for £ from the Treasuary? thats why many areas end up so underinvested in the first place. let them operate along commerical lines with own debt, operating surplus so back to the business. then let regulator to control what investment is expected. btw, that is already partially the case for water (regulator has prioritised reducing water leakage for decades) and has been done for rail infrastucture.

this private/nationalised argument should be left to the 70's and 80's. we know for many areas of infrastructure neither works very well, so find the middle ground.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

no we couldnt shore up the system spaffing billions without harm. that spending caused the first wave of inflation. its forgotten because the second wave grabs the attention, we were nudging over 6% at start of 2022.

The first one was driven by the fuel crisis though wasn't it?

I don't mean we should spaff the equivalent of the Covid spaff giving public sector workers a pay rise. It wouldn't cost anything like that...

 

[Machiavelli]

Norway (along with Abu Dhabi, Qatar etc) is a difficult one to bring into these discussions. They were a poor country, then had the carbons bonanza of finding oil and gas, giving them sovereign wealth funds now of $1.3t. Genuinely, they're set up economically for centuries to come.

Agreed. One thing that I'll add is that they have transparency on wages, taxation and IIRC even assets in Norway. This means that anybody can see the broad financial situation of other citizens. What do you reckon are the chances of those politicians that like to bang on about 'transparency is the best disinfectant' proposing a replica over here?

[People with devious intent sometimes say why couldn't we have had that? Because with similar oil/gas reserves, there's was spread over a population 1/13th of the size, in addition they weren't crippled by WW1/WW2 public debt as a starting point. The clever move they did make was in 1972 to bring it all under state ownership].

I might just have devious intent. The UK oil bonanza pretty much coincided with Thatcher, and facilitated the great tax cutting policy on the rich she inflicted. Public debt had been slashed before she launched the neoliberal agenda:

UK government debt 2024 | Statista

Public sector net debt amounted to 88.8 percent of gross domestic product in the United Kingdom during the 2023/24 financial year, rising to 97.6 percent when Bank of England is included.

www.statista.com

And this was in the trentes glorieuses in which we had the NHS, utilities were nationalised, universal pension provision, etc, increasing wages, declining inequality, progressive taxation, and so on.

A better comparison is with Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark. Their systems are based on higher personal tax rates for everyone on middle incomes upwards.

The median gross pay in Stockholm is 498,000 SEK or £36,600, taxes amount to 23.2%. Here that would be 21%. Day to day living things are far more expensive there (we've visited), but most people live in apartments.

A £50,270 salary here gives rise to taxes of 24%, that's 685,000 SEK taxed at 30.50%.

I think this boils down to the value of land/house prices, and rents, in most of England, is the killer.

I agree that those might be better comparators. Germany, France and Italy might be better still (but let's not go there). Also, thanks for sharing those stats. Interesting. Presumably those taxes that you're quoting are direct taxes on income (rather than including, eg, VAT)?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

amounts to the same thing to the majority of the population, constant treadmill of pay rise, price rise, pay rise, price rise, and people are always behind the curve.

The problem is, as far as I understand it, that an increasing number of people are increasingly behind the curve.