Strong and Stable Or Weak and Wobbly? You Decide

Jeremy Corbyn walks out on stage at a stadium to speak to 20,000 people and does so with confidence and animation. The crowds chant his name and video footage streams to thousands more. 

Meanwhile, Theresa May enters community centres through the back door to avoid angry service users at the front, and she speaks to whichever Conservative activists she can fit on her bus because when she is questioned by members of the public, the public reveal her policies are failing and are worth less than the uncosted manifesto they're written on. I do hope she's bothered to properly declare the cost of her battle bus and is ensuing her serving  MPs and candidates are doing the same, we'd hate to repeat that farce...

We can see who's strong and stable, and it isn't May; the farce is strong with that one.

Help us, J.C; you are our only hope.

Corbyn; If you strike me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine. 

Corbyn has withstood character assassination and smear campaign, he has stood firmly despite the weight of misinformation and prejudiced propaganda levelled against him. He came back stronger from his leadership challenge and he looks stronger now, speaking to the people, than our current Prime Minister could conceive. May isn't even brave enough to enter a TV debate with the leader of the opposition, which is usually standard practise...

But then we know why she won't debate with him. She'd lose. Even in the commons, during debates, May has to resort to personal slight against Corbyn because he holds her accountable. That works in the commons because the press can then selectively choose what to show in the 6 o'clock news and put there own spin on it.

So many times even the supposedly impartial BBC show May making personal slights rather than dealing with the matter at hand and call that behaviour 'strong' then take one line of Corbyn's reply out of context to misreport it and ignore everything else he's said to expose Mrs May's failings. This attitude to 'news' encourages a bullying approach, spits on fair and honest debate, and is specifically designed to fuel the propaganda machine rather than provide quality journalism. It's not on, and it's time we stood up to it. Who pays licence fees? Who buys papers? We should expect more.

We only need to visit YouTube to see how low the BBC go when discussing May vs Corbyn. In fact, much as the Tories U-turned on the policy mentioned in the below video, some sources are already reporting that they have dropped the 10,000 promised mental health nurses from their manifesto just a week after they were promised! (This fact needs verified, but to see how the Conservatives manage mental health services, simply Google how many nurses we've lost over the last seven years - it's a lot.)

This behaviour in the media sets the tone for Conservative MPs, spin doctors, activists, and even Tory voters in general. During the course of the last week I've spoken to numerous Conservative voters through social media and I've discovered something. When faced with facts and figures they either go silent (like May when asked onto debate shows, or to nursing conferences) or they spout outright lies with no evidence to back them up (like the Tory propaganda machine), or they resort to personal attacks (much like May and the mainstream media). They'll trot out the 'loony lefty' line, or they'll say you're lying without having any evidence to dispute the wealth of evidence you've provided. They'll tell you that the Tories 'always have to clean up Labour's mess', despite the evidence stating that it is Labour who clean up the Conservatives mess. I have yet to receive any real debate in face of my Debt, Deficit, and Deceit post. I've been called a liar. I've been told pigs might fly. I've had outright disbelief. No one can dispute it though, because the figures reveal the truth.

The best anyone has managed to come up with, is 'but look at the 1970, Labour had highest rate income tax up at 98% and they still got us into debt by reckless spending'. At first glance, it would seem that tax rate was far to high for no benefit as that chased the wealthy away from Britain. But no one is suggesting we go back to 98%. Labour aren't even suggesting we go back to the 60% tax which Thatcher was reluctant to drop below. No one is intending to return to the 1970s and to claim that's where labour will lead us is nothing but scaremongering. Yes, a 98% tax would be damaging. A 50% tax? No, because as discussed in Debt, Deficit, and Deceit, if the rich were to pull investment on that, it'd be cutting their noses off to spite there faces. We need to stop spreading this lie that the wealthy will only receive 2% of their higher bracket earnings (those earning above what most of us can dream of, remember, they still have  personal allowances and basic rate earning, higher rate tax is only applied to income over the threshold). Labour still want the wealthy to keep 50% of higher rate earnings. That's 10% more than Thatcher and only 10% less than now. To keep mentioning the 70's is baseless scaremongering when what they should be worried about is the Conservative dementia  tax.

Let's have a look at that, then. The plan is to have the elderly who need care to sign up to an insurance policy which allows them and their partner to live in their home until they die, but upon death the money to cover care cost's is taken from the sale of the property, from equity over £100k. The average house in the UK is worth well over £100k, and it seems there is to be no real limit on the amount which can be taken from equity over that first £100k. These insurance policies will also be able to force the sale of a property at less than market value, reducing the amount any children will inherit with no recourse. People will see their inheritance slashed by such a move, and while inheritance is a luxury many don't enjoy, it does mean that even the average working family who have their own homes could see them taken from their families.

Such a tax would affect working and middle class families, and only serves the top earners who have enough to pay for care anyway. Why are families being asked to pay National Insurance to fund care and public services, only to be told their children will also lose their inheritance in order to pay for care for a second time?

This policy also flies in the face of parity of esteem between mental and invisible illnesses, and physical illnesses. 

Cancer patients will continue to be treated for free (as they should be. My father died last year on a palliative care ward of this terrible disease), but dementia patients will be forced to give up most of what they worked to have to pass on to their children. Perhaps it is a mercy that winter fuel allowance is being cut, some of us might freeze to death before we have to take such drastic measures. Also, on the note of winter furl allowance; the plan is to make it means-tested. This is a terrible decision.

Many people will fall through the net with such a system, either being daunted with the application process (as is the way with Universal Credit, PIP, ESA, etc) or they won't want the shame of being means tested. People will die for no reason other than the fact a simple systems suddenly becomes overly complicated and denies self-respect. Means testing is an accusatory process. You apply and then government bodies assess you to see if you're trying to steal the paltry amounts on offer. I know, having recently been scrutinised for PIP, after having worked for 15 years, right from 16, and having professional experience and a first class degree. I have aspirations, drive, a willingness to work, but saying I need temporary help is a shaming process. No one should be ashamed because they are sick, old, were raped, or because their parents decided to give birth to them...

Means tested benefits are also hugely inefficient. This is because they involve an application process which means paying staff to sort applications, award payments, and handle appeals. The current benefits system is hugely inefficient for this reason. It would actually be cheaper to award everyone a basic, living income, and then recoup the costs as taxes or National Insurance from those who earn enough not to need it. That's not to say the wealthy will pay extra or pay twice, they will simply pay back a benefit they don't need. They'll get no benefit and suffer no loss. However, government finances as a whole would benefit because they'd reduce the cost of labour and IT systems needed to deal with means tested applications, there would be lower levels of poverty, so more people would be spending money, which would strengthen the economy, people who suffer ill health or homelessness due to poverty would be taken out of poverty and become less of a burden on public services, whilst also regaining autonomy and therefore some dignity, which will improve productivity.

The productivity bit stumps a few people, people who claim that hand outs encourage people to live off the state, and that we should stop hand outs. If anyone was suggesting we hand out the average wage, I would agree, but no one is suggesting that. What is being suggested is that people are given enough for food, because poorly nourished people are unhealthy and unproductive, money for clothes, because looking smart helps get and hold onto work and respect, and money for basic essentials like heating and a roof, because people die of hypothermia and worrying about homelessness causes a cycle of depression and low productivity. A little stress is good for people, it's a driving force, but when this becomes prolonged it starts to lessen productivity. Constant worry about money lowers productivity, it makes people less capable of getting or retaining work, it makes people more prone to mental and physical illness, it costs government finances more by creating problems than it solves. Making sure people have a basic income lowers that stress and worry, and allows them to look above the parapet, to see that the can do more and start working towards aspirations. It encourages people, rather than discourages them. If you tell a man he's worthless for long enough, he will believe himself worthless. If you allow a man his self respect, most will seek to remain respectable.

Now, back to Tory voters and their claims I'm lying. One told me yesterday that Labour policies have always been 'high tax, high borrowing, and high spending'. This is a fundamentally flawed argument based on the '70's 98% higher rate tax and the lie that Labour borrows and spends more than the Conservatives. Yes, Thatcher cut higher rate tax to 60%, but she also introduced huge amounts of stealth tax, which mean the effective tax rate peaked under her leadership. People paid more in tax under Thatcher than they did under the preceding Labour government. The last Labour government lowered this rate.

Yes, that's right, under Labour we paid lower taxes. 

Source: The National Archives (with annotation)

When I pointed this out to the 'gentleman' I was debating with, announced that if the Conservatives taxed more, it was because they always have to tidy up after Labour's spending. At this point, I reminded him that Thatcher also spent more than the preceding labour government. He then reverted to the line 'lies, damned lies, and statistics'. I pointed out he had indeed told lies, damned lies, but had skipped the statistics entirely and ended the debate. He was too stubborn and to wilfully misinformed to keep spending time on, but I hoped someone else may read the information I'd posted and draw their own conclusions.

Source: Economics Help

Now posting that graph is a risk, and I expect a backlash of Tory voters claiming 'but look, under Blair's government spending went up! That just proves how reckless Labour are!' At which point I'd refer again to my previous post on the subject, Debt, Deficit, and Deceit. Labour's increased spending was due to better economic productivity and investment in infrastructure, not due to increased debt or taxation. As previously stated in this post, the effective tax rate was lowered, and as discussed in the aforementioned article, borrowing as a percentage of GDP was also lowered.

Under Labour we had less debt, and we paid less tax, despite increases in public spending, because we had such a strong economy.

Under the Conservatives, we have skyrocketing debt, slow growth in the economy, historically they require higher taxation through stealth taxes, which is a trend Theresa May's manifesto of misery seems intent on continuing. 

Under Labour, child poverty fell dramatically and the gap between the wealthy and the poor reduced. The NHS ran at a surplus, and numbers of nurses and teachers training remained stable.

Under the Conservatives, child poverty is rising and while it hasn't yet reached Thatcher's levels, it is heading that way and may well surpass them. The gap between the top 5% and the rest of us is increasing. Our public services are in huge deficit, and the numbers of unfilled nursing posts are increasing, nurses in training are decreasing, and larger classes are being taught be fewer qualified teachers.

• Our children are malnourished.
• Our elderly are dying of hypothermia.
• Our workforce is impoverished.
• Our homeless and starving are increasing. 
• Our public services are failing.
• Our economy is teetering on the brink of free fall.
• Our wealthiest politicians and business owners  grow wealthier through our suffering.
• Our populace is, by majority, worse off now than they were ten years ago.

What more do you need to know in order to #VoteLabour?

If you do one thing on June 8th, then go and vote for your Labour candidate. If you don't have a Labour candidate, then vote Co-op (if you have a co-op working in conjunction with Labour), or vote Green, or vote for your independent representative (not to be confused with UKIP, votes for whom may ensure Conservative victory). Do it for your children, your grandparents, the disabled, the sick... Do it for yourselves by supporting economic growth rather than debt and economic stagnation. Do it because it's the only decent thing to do.

Carmine Raven