What the Tories always manage so well, is to take a complicated situation and present it in black and white terms. This makes it easy for the media and the public to digest.
When Corbyn has a conversation with the IRA, that can be spun as him supporting terrorism because nuance is no longer respected by the media, or indeed large parts of the electorate.
Itās populism at its worst and unfortunately the Labour party donāt do populism. The result is they are unpopular and therefore wonāt win.
If the culture in this country was to respect knowledge, insight and each other more, then they would have a chance. IF ambition were seen for the evil it is - in political terms- then Labour would have a chance. But it isnāt, so they donāt.
Thornberry was great there. Its that kind of Frank BS calling that is needed to get through to folk.
I have decided to become somewhat annoyed at Labourās plan for renationalision. The thing is, I mostly approve of it, but itās too expensive.
What I think we need is a more European-style system. Most utilities in Germany and France are not fully national, they have a share-based ownership whereby the local authority might own part, part may be other authorities (especially in Germany, where the French own a fair bit after the war!), and the rest is quoted on a stock exchange. The local authority will also have a golden share, which gives them absolute control over certain decisions.
This part nationalisation system is such a good idea - it means that the company is not working fully for profit, but there is a lot of pressure on it to improve if itās not making enough. Much of its profit goes back into the local area. It canāt simply move jobs to cheaper areas, as it has to balance profit with local benefit.
This system applies to many services on the continent. It could easily be brought in here. Even rail could use it - have some shares owned by the authorities where the trains for that company run.
While I havenāt seen the Labour manifesto, I bet itās full nationalisation. Which is unimaginative, expensive and flawed.
Iām happy to vote for a three day week.
Loved it when I was a kid 
That was Ted Heath of course. Todayās Tories might not be able to deliver that for you. Margaret Thatcher taught the UK mining industry a lesson by scorching it off the face of the earth. The communities it supported were, well, collateral damage. You canāt make an omelette without breaking faces.
VB
Iām baffled as to why working hours are not decreasing. Now graduates have to work longer hours to stand out, so they have a chance of progression. But our productivity is still lower than the French, who have a limit on hours worked.
The French donāt have an absolute cap on working ours, they just have mandatory minimum overtime rates. So if you work between 34 and 40 hours in a week, itās 1.5, and anything over 40 hours is at double-time.
I heard a debate a few years ago about why the dream/nightmare of universal leisure, brought about by robots taking over all the jobs, which was so widely predicted in the 1960ās has never materialised and why, in fact, the opposite with everyone now working stupidly long hours, is the case. One expert suggested that rewards (typically money) are handed out in return for work and that when people were offered the options a) of sticking with the rewards they had in the 60ās (roughly one bathroom, one car, one TV, one phone and a couple of wirelesses per household, almost no foreign holidays, central heating seen as a luxury, seasonal veg etc, etc) and having more leisure or b) continuing to work as hard, or harder, in return for having more stuff they chose having more stuff. The effect of serious under-provision of housing, which has forced its cost through the roof (no pun intended) and therefore maintained the need to compete in the workplace for it shouldnāt be underestimated either.
VB
Is it cultural ? Like in sport we love the ones that put in most effort rather than the winner.
Total hours worked isnāt the measure of productivity. If you were to measure it in terms of hours spent you would need to balance that with actual work complete, a rate of output per unit input or somesuch.
I havenāt looked up the stats but my guess is that it would boil down to a lack of investment in both manufacturing and service industries. New machinery, training, efficient organisation, staff qualifications and skills, national infrastructure etc etc. Investment in these is where we will be lacking. A ready supply of cheap labour acts as a disincentive to invest as you can just chuck more labour at the process. I also remember reading somewhere that low interest rates allow what would otherwise be failing Companies to survive and soak up available capital, thus denying capital to riskier enterprises.
OK, this is possible the most boring post in the history of Hi Fi fora (which is an achievement in itself)
@BobCās post is largely correct but misses some import points by confusing short term and long term growth effects. In strict economic terms productivity is the ratio of outputs to inputs and measures the efficiency of the productive process.
Outputs (Y) and Inputs (K,L):
The simplest way to think of production is that output, Y, is a function of Capital, K and Labour L, so
Y=Af(K,L) where f(.) is a function.
Both K and L exhibit diminishing marginal productivity. Imagine you want to dig a hole, then you need a unit of capital (a shovel) and a unit of labour (a bloke) to produce a unit of output (the hole). A second shovel is less productive than the first as the bloke canāt really dig with two shovels at the same time. Similarly a second bloke and one shovel makes no sense as two people cant use a shovel at the same time effectively. You canāt use cheap labour to dig your way out of a slump (although it helps) without investing in capital, but then cheap labour is a false economy in the long runā¦
Total factor productivity A measures all the other things such as
Poor countries grow quickly because there are huge gains to be had from increasing the Capital stock and Labour force. Rich countries grow more slowly as the benefits to growing the Capital stock and/or labour force are hindered by diminishing productivity. Richer countries should therefore invest in A. Here your analysis is correct as the UK has a horrible track record in investing adequately. Improving the quality of the capital stock (new technology) and the quality of the labour force (education, training quality) is the path to long-run growth.
If you think that is boring, google for āSolow-Swan Modelā which explains the short-run stuff. The long-run stuff is known as āEndogenous Growth Theoryā.
Boring as shit but Iām sure itās all very relevant and important and that.
Investing in Total Factor Productivity (increasing A) is very unfashionable in the UK 
which has relied on Demand Management since the late 1970ās. It is nearly as stupid as having a Supply Side Policy, which we havenāt since the days of Mrs T. Germany on the other hand, or China or South Korea orā¦
Hear what ya saying and stuff but, fuck, is that the time already ?
No.
Not even in a Keynesian economy ?
The stuff I posted on growth is long-run in term (think decades).
Keynesian and/or Monetarist policies are two approaches to dealing with the Business Cycle which is short-run (think 2-5 years).
Keynesian policies are fine in the case of a market failure. (e.g. after 2008). They are not necessarily the correct response to a policy failure. Iām all for markets being the solution where appropriate.