Corbynomics: A Dystopia

ruggedtoast

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.

They're panicking because they had convinced themselves Ed lost the election because he was too left wing, which was supposed to give them free reign to revive the corpse of New Labour.

This suited the Blairites to a tee because whether or not Ed was too left wing for Britain, he was certainly too left wing for them.

It now turns out that actually it appears that Ed wasn't actually left wing enough which means the Labour party may have to rediscover socialism.

There is, needless to say, no place for Kendall, Burnham and Cooper in this future, nor many of the neolib Apparatchiks hangers on.

Personally I can't see the back of them soon enough. If people don't want a left wing government they are free not to vote for it. If they do it would be nice if they had one to vote for that hasn't been ruined by a bunch of middle class tories who think they are working class because their parents sent them to state school.

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

They're panicking because they had convinced themselves Ed lost the election because he was too left wing, which was supposed to give them free reign to revive the corpse of New Labour.

This suited the Blairites to a tee because whether or not Ed was too left wing for Britain, he was certainly too left wing for them.

It now turns out that actually it appears that Ed wasn't actually left wing enough which means the Labour party may have to rediscover socialism.

There is, needless to say, no place for Kendall, Burnham and Cooper in this future, nor many of the neolib Apparatchiks hangers on.

Personally I can't see the back of them soon enough. If people don't want a left wing government they are free not to vote for it. If they do it would be nice if they had one to vote for that hasn't been ruined by a bunch of middle class tories who think they are working class because their parents sent them to state school.

the socialist workers party is available for people like yourself who despise most of the british people

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

the socialist workers party is available for people like yourself who despise most of the british people

You, Sir, are quite rude.

ruggedtoast

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You, Sir, are quite rude.

No need to point that out to him, Graham. It's more than evident to everyone who reads his posts anyway, and completely lost on him.

michaels

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.

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.

You are Tony Benn and I claim my £5

Graham_Devon

michaels wrote: »

You are Tony Benn and I claim my £5

You can claim your £5 after you've told me what's so bad about what I said.

Until that point, you are simply replying with what could be construed an insult with absolutely nothing to tell me what was wrong with what was said. Which is funny really, as that's the majority of the stuff I see being directed at Corbyn.

Do you disagree that importing coal involves price fluctuations?

Do you disagree that opening up coal mines will provide employment?

Do you disagree that employed people pay tax?

Do you disagree that the fewer unemployed there are, the lower the welfare bill is?

michaels

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You can claim your £5 after you've told me what's so bad about what I said.

Until that point, you are simply replying with what could be construed an insult with absolutely nothing to tell me what was wrong with what was said. Which is funny really, as that's the majority of the stuff I see being directed at Corbyn.

Do you disagree that importing coal involves price fluctuations?

Do you disagree that opening up coal mines will provide employment?

Do you disagree that employed people pay tax?

Do you disagree that the fewer unemployed there are, the lower the welfare bill is?

Or I could have just been commenting that you were advocating the sort of policy that I have only heard from Tony Benn since the 1970s, it obviously goes hand in hand with imposing import tariffs on almost everything and leaving the EU.

Graham_Devon

michaels wrote: »

Or I could have just been commenting that you were advocating the sort of policy that I have only heard from Tony Benn since the 1970s, it obviously goes hand in hand with imposing import tariffs on almost everything and leaving the EU.

With all due respect, it's exactly what you are doing that I'm suggesting others are doing.

You've not answered a single part of my post.

You've not even attempted to look at the policy or answer the questions posed. You won't say whether you agree with whats said or whether you dissagree.

All you will commit to is a few vague one liners which I can only assume are thrown as some kind of insult. I know Tony Benn was seen as some kind of loony, so I know what you are doing with the "you are Tony Benn" thing.

However, I'm trying to get people to state WHY things he has said are so inherently bad. but it seems people are incapable and this thread hasn't exactly gone any way to disproving that. It's simply gone straight to the well trodden ground of having a go.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Do you disagree that importing coal involves price fluctuations?

Do you disagree that opening up coal mines will provide employment?

Do you disagree that employed people pay tax?

Do you disagree that the fewer unemployed there are, the lower the welfare bill is?

Ultimately if it's cheaper to import coal and we convert to British coal then you're asking for a subsidy for the coal industry paid for via people's electricity bills.

The queue for a subsidy of one sort or another is already a mile long.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Ultimately if it's cheaper to import coal and we convert to British coal then you're asking for a subsidy for the coal industry paid for via people's electricity bills.

The queue for a subsidy of one sort or another is already a mile long.

I've already stated that I realise that.

However, while it might be cheaper today - what about next year? Can we guarentee that it will be cheaper to import coal?

Does the maths even work out? Is it still cheaper to import coal when all things are considered The extra tax, the lower welfare? The extra jobs?

I'm asking questions as I genuinely don't know. Subsidies are everywhere, so they are not anything new. So why should the coal industry be an induistry that shouldn't get a subsidy when other industries do?