Corbynomics: A Dystopia

Generali

NB I did not write this nor do I agree with it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3207363/Prime-Minister-Corbyn-1-000-days-destroyed-Britain-brilliant-imagining-Corbyn-premiership-reveals-Tories-gloat-Labour-s-woe-careful-wish-for.html

It's bloody funny though:rotfl:

The night sky over London was thick with choking black smoke, but in the hellish glow of the flames rising from a myriad burning buildings, the rioters, looters and demonstrators fighting on the city streets could just make out the United Nations helicopter taking Jeremy Corbyn away from 10 Downing Street to his retirement cottage in Ireland.


Not for him the Prime Minister’s Jaguar in which his hated Mrs Thatcher had departed on the night she, too, was deposed. All Government cars had long since been sold in a desperate bid to pay off the £3 trillion National Debt, after the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the European Central Bank had refused to hand a bankrupt, basket-case Britain any more emergency loans.


In any case, the streets weren’t safe enough for a Prime Minister to drive along. Not since the police, furious at being unpaid for months, had gone on an indefinite strike.

The Daily Mail sinks to lows not seen since its support for Hitler.

Oh well. Something to cheer us all up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmYIo7bcUw

chucknorris

Generali wrote: »

Oh well. Something to cheer us all up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmYIo7bcUw

IMO the original Mel Brooks and Gene Wilder film was great, but I didn't even make it past a few mins into that remake.

EDIT: Actually I just remembered Zero Mostel was the co-star and Mel Brooks just directed.

Generali

chucknorris wrote: »

IMO the original Mel Brooks and Gene Wilder film was great, but I didn't even make it past a few mins into that remake.

I confess I stuck up the first version of the song I came across.

Graham_Devon

I'll confess that I'm liking Corbyn more and more. Though I realise this is a view many won't agree with, all I'd ask is that people look at it and question it for a second.

I watched Newsnight last night and there was a piece on Corbyn. Now, the Corbyn supporter didn't seem to do herself any favours, but there was an ex labour MP there advising against voting for Corbyn.

By the end of the interview, the ex labour MP had sort of shot himself in the foot. It was a good interview, in that the presenter got the labour MP to state he agreed with most of what Corbyn stated. It seemed in the end he didn't agree with Corbyn simply because of who he was. The party and what it used to stand for was more important to this MP than voting for who he appeared to agree with. It was as if they couldn't vote Corbyn regardless of if they agreed with him as Blair and Mandelson would be upset.

It's all a bit bizarre really. I don't know what'[s so inherently bad about nationalising rail, Other countries have nationalised rail. Opening up some coal pits again seems sensible.

They then had a go at the "peoples QE". They started on the name. However, it was Corbyn supporters who had created this name only to then go on and deride it. Corbyn just went along with the name it seems.

I dunno, theres just something about him. Corbyn stands there quietly in the centre of what seems to be a whirlwind around him with so many trying to aimlessly throw a punch.

There was a clip earlier today from Yvette Cooper on why she should be leader, and all she could do was have a go at Corbyn. All Burnham could do was state "pettiness has overtaken politics" and then went down the petty path of suggesting don't vote for Corbyn.

Corbyn however just said he wanted to see fairness for all in a society that includes all. No attacks, no reference to anyone else. just a simple statement.

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's all a bit bizarre really. I don't know what'[s so inherently bad about nationalising rail, Other countries have nationalised rail. Opening up some coal pits again seems sensible.

1. Rail nationalisation. What should we not do instead? Bear in mind that this £120bn of Corbyn's is entirely fictional so spending more on one thing either means more taxes, less spending, more borrowing or inflation.

2. Coal. Climate change means we should be consuming less coal not more.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

They then had a go at the "peoples QE". They started on the name. However, it was Corbyn supporters who had created this name only to then go on and deride it. Corbyn just went along with the name it seems.

If people's QE is printing money to spend on stuff that is likely to go very badly wrong. If anyone can find a successful example of same then I'd be glad to see it.

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

1. Rail nationalisation. What should we not do instead? Bear in mind that this £120bn of Corbyn's is entirely fictional so spending more on one thing either means more taxes, less spending, more borrowing or inflation.

2. Coal. Climate change means we should be consuming less coal not more.



If people's QE is printing money to spend on stuff that is likely to go very badly wrong. If anyone can find a successful example of same then I'd be glad to see it.

1. £120bn isn't achievable. £60bn though probably is - without hiking tax rates. Anglian Water apparently didn't pay any tax the last 2 financial years through clever accounting. It's that sort of thing that should be looked into.

2. Climate change does state we should be using less coal. But if we are buying it in anyway, surely it would be better to use our own stuff?

The peoples QE stuff is interesting, only you say "if it is to be used". I'd agree, if it's used in the wrong way, it could go wrong. But you could say that about anything or any potential leader....

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'll confess that I'm liking Corbyn more and more. Though I realise this is a view many won't agree with, all I'd ask is that people look at it and question it for a second.

I watched Newsnight last night and there was a piece on Corbyn. Now, the Corbyn supporter didn't seem to do herself any favours, but there was an ex labour MP there advising against voting for Corbyn.

By the end of the interview, the ex labour MP had sort of shot himself in the foot. It was a good interview, in that the presenter got the labour MP to state he agreed with most of what Corbyn stated. It seemed in the end he didn't agree with Corbyn simply because of who he was. The party and what it used to stand for was more important to this MP than voting for who he appeared to agree with. It was as if they couldn't vote Corbyn regardless of if they agreed with him as Blair and Mandelson would be upset.

It's all a bit bizarre really. I don't know what'[s so inherently bad about nationalising rail, Other countries have nationalised rail. Opening up some coal pits again seems sensible.

They then had a go at the "peoples QE". They started on the name. However, it was Corbyn supporters who had created this name only to then go on and deride it. Corbyn just went along with the name it seems.

I dunno, theres just something about him. Corbyn stands there quietly in the centre of what seems to be a whirlwind around him with so many trying to aimlessly throw a punch.

There was a clip earlier today from Yvette Cooper on why she should be leader, and all she could do was have a go at Corbyn. All Burnham could do was state "pettiness has overtaken politics" and then went down the petty path of suggesting don't vote for Corbyn.

Corbyn however just said he wanted to see fairness for all in a society that includes all. No attacks, no reference to anyone else. just a simple statement.

given we have a conservative government wanting a £9 per hour minimum wage, maybe Corbyn isn't so bad

antrobus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

1. £120bn isn't achievable. £60bn though probably is - without hiking tax rates. .

The £120bn number is not a fact, it is simply a very large number made up by that retired accountant from Wandsworth. The point of making up a very large number is so that simple minded people will assume that if the figure is that big then it will be easy to get 10%, 30%, or even 50% of that number without making any real effort.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

...Anglian Water apparently didn't pay any tax the last 2 financial years through clever accounting. It's that sort of thing that should be looked into....

That's because Anglian Water didn't make much profit after payment of the interest on the debt it had taken on. It has been looked at in some detail.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

...2. Climate change does state we should be using less coal. But if we are buying it in anyway, surely it would be better to use our own stuff?

No, if we are going to use coal we would be better off buying the cheapest we can find.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

....The peoples QE stuff is interesting, only you say "if it is to be used". I'd agree, if it's used in the wrong way, it could go wrong. But you could say that about anything or any potential leader....

You misunderstand. 'If it is to be used' means if you decide that QE is necessary. 'Printing money' is not something you do as a matter of course, it is something you do when things are so bad nothing else will work.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

1. Rail nationalisation. What should we not do instead? Bear in mind that this £120bn of Corbyn's is entirely fictional so spending more on one thing either means more taxes, less spending, more borrowing or inflation.
...

I buy into this idea of questioning where precious resources are directed.

However, why do we challenge rail nationalisation, which would apply UK wide, but not challenge free University education for a small section of the UK North of the border?

It probably comes down to politics. So does politics trump economic prioritisation?

Graham_Devon

antrobus wrote: »

No, if we are going to use coal we would be better off buying the cheapest we can find.

Not necessarily.

Todays price may be cheap. Tommorows price of importing may be expensive.

If were mining our own, the trade price doesn't effect our internal use. (Though there may be other ways of using the coal if exporting will create a higher revenue).

Secondly, mining coal creates jobs and therefore tax revenue and therefore reduces expenditure on welfare.

Can't really complain about the welfare bill and unemployment in this country if we are going to use the cheapest possible import of other countries products at all times.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Not necessarily.

Todays price may be cheap. Tommorows price of importing may be expensive.

If were mining our own, the trade price doesn't effect our internal use. (Though there may be other ways of using the coal if exporting will create a higher revenue).

Secondly, mining coal creates jobs and therefore tax revenue and therefore reduces expenditure on welfare.

it's an argument for banning or imposing high tariff barriers on all imported goods.