How Much is a Corbyn?

antrobus

Lungboy wrote: »

In this crazy hypothetical world, why wouldn't he simply revoke the operating licences of the current power companies, then create a new nationalised company called British Power or whatever and award it sole operations for power?

Because that would not be compatible with either EU energy directives nor the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and probably some other things as well.

antrobus

Today we have a YouGov for the Times giving Corbyn a 53% vote share, which equals victory on the first ballot. Perhaps we shall see some flesh on the bones of Corbynomics in the near future.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

The problem is likely to be how Mr Corbyn persuades the French Government to hive off a chunk of EDF in order for the British Government to buy it.

Like the French would listen to anything the British say.

It's one of the longest running rivalries in history.

Mr Corbyns' chances are somewhere between none and zero.

martinsurrey

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/10609141/Foreign-investment-in-France-slips-to-27-year-low.html

I think Hollande and Corbyn would get on famously, just a shame that the UK would follow France back into recession, a near total collapse in foreign investment, 10%+ unemployment... so not really good company

Graham_Devon

I've personally got no idea whether the numbers stack or or indeed, whether the cost is worth it.

But it has to be noted that while there is a cost, there is also an income to be made.

Looking at the cost in isolation in any situation can seem scary and I note it's something the telegraph are doing all the time at the moment regarding Corbyn. They simply don't refer to any income or benefits any of the costs may bring with them.

Yet when it comes to £bllions for high speed rail, the benefits of that cost are laid out for us all to see, clearly because they support it.

martinsurrey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I've personally got no idea whether the numbers stack or or indeed, whether the cost is worth it.

But it has to be noted that while there is a cost, there is also an income to be made.

Looking at the cost in isolation in any situation can seem scary and I note it's something the telegraph are doing all the time at the moment regarding Corbyn. They simply don't refer to any income or benefits any of the costs may bring with them.

Yet when it comes to a £53bn cost for high speed rail, the benefits of that cost are laid out for us all to see, clearly because they support it.

If a government run entity could do it better, why don't they set up a company/buy a company and compete against these money grabbing private entities, surely they could crush them and demonstrate that they are the best people to run the show?

antrobus

martinsurrey wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/10609141/Foreign-investment-in-France-slips-to-27-year-low.html

I think Hollande and Corbyn would get on famously, just a shame that the UK would follow France back into recession, a near total collapse in foreign investment, 10%+ unemployment... so not really good company

Hollande and Corbyn may not get on at all. There will be French presidential election in 2017, and the last time I looked the polls were showing Hollande running in third place, which equals no chance of winning.

MS1950

vivatifosi wrote: »

The Bagehot column in The Economist contains an interesting piece on Corbyn. It even mentions the Overton window.

In economic terms, it speaks of Corbyn failing to investigate new left views, sticking entirely to the past in terms of renationalisation etc. Interesting read...
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21660599-labours-prospective-next-leader-may-be-partys-hard-left-he-no-radical-jeremy

If you're going to have a serious discussion on 'Corbynomics' - instead of listing various 'back of an envelope' speculations based on what are necessarily short and simplified policy statements made during the leadership election campaign - then I would have thought it worth starting with what is clearly the source of many of his ideas and proposals – the 'New Economics Foundation'.

Whatever their merits I would have thought that they can't simply be dismissed as a return to 'the 1980s' or 'Clause IV' (which incidentally was written by Sidney Webb - later Baron Passfield, founder member member of the Fabian Society set up to “advance the principles of socialism via gradualist and reformist means” - not Lenin).

I haven't had the time to study the NEF's proposals in any depth in order to evaluate them – but a good starting point would seem to be several substantial reports that seem central to what Corbyn has been saying:

'Strategic quantitative easing', 'The British Business Bank' and 'Reforming RBS' - all available here:

http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/by/economy

martinsurrey

antrobus wrote: »

Hollande and Corbyn may not get on at all. There will be French presidential election in 2017, and the last time I looked the polls were showing Hollande running in third place, which equals no chance of winning.

is he third, because in the run up to the election he promised a new world of free money for the poor, high tax for the rich, full employment and efficient government services, but only managed to deliver the worst parts of it?

He'll have more time to be special adviser to the labour party then! and seeing as the average Labour party employee is paid more than £43k (which is more than the Tory's, he wont have to curb his lifestyle!

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2013/10/24/is-the-average-labour-party-salary-really-43k-per-year/

Mistermeaner

Moby wrote: »

As a 'customer' whatever that is these days....I've tarted around all those utilities above on your list and wasn't impressed with the service at all. I didn't experience much 'competency' and will gladly listen to alternatives for providing such services.

oh dear, oh dear

So the 'service' wasn't good - the government having proven themselves far more effective at providing such things not only cost effectively but also with excellent service too.

That alone justifies the expenditure and asset seizing as it would be great to give someone else a go.