Corbynomics: A Dystopia

Conrad

Being left wing is the easiest political position to adopt as it means you can simply promise lots of things to lots of people by spending. This then has the added benefit of framing you as semi Saintly. Win, win.

Being of the right means you don't get to enjoy overt virtue signalling and the simplicity of saying many things will solved by spending more. A much tougher message to have to live with, but ultimately more honest.
We owe £1.5 trillion, how much do you greedy lefties want us to owe?

Surely then being of the right makes one a deeper thinker able to contemplate a world where more spending is not the silver lining to every cloud..

N1AK

Generali wrote: »

Next bonkers plan from our Hero in a Vest:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11844594/Jeremy-Corbyn-Let-taxpayers-opt-out-of-funding-the-Army.html

I'm not sure what about that particular plan seems so bonkers to you; in fact it rather seems that you've already made your mind up that it must be bonkers, thus through those tinted goggles it appears so; a lack of rational consideration on your part.

What percentage of people do you think would opt out of funding the army (in a way that doesn't mean paying less tax)? Virtually none. It would hardly influence the military budget, and it would give people who do not wish to fund a military the ability to do so (much like how the WI has accommodated Quaker pacificism even during world wars).

Perhaps you could explain why exactly this idea is bonkers?

N1AK

Conrad wrote: »

Surely then being of the right makes one a deeper thinker able to contemplate a world where more spending is not the silver lining to every cloud..

I'll accept that Trump is more right-wing and a deeper thinker than you; I'm not however sure that's supporting any rational proof that the right is more intellectual than a glass of lemon water.

Right-Left is a near meaningless scale, and only a lack of imagination would lead someone to imagine that false/implausible promises are easier to make for either side.

N1AK

Generali wrote: »

He's a car crash waiting to happen. AFAICS, if we take the not unreasonable view that Mr Corbyn is an unelectable nutter, then who can serve in his cabinet?

I don't support him, but I also struggle to find any passion to oppose him with. Corbyn's support strikes me as a scream of frustration by a large chunk of the population who are sick and tired of 'politics'.

I'm inclined towards the view that Corbyn winning will end up being a good thing for liberal/progressive part of the population. I can't see him winning an election, but it invigorates their politics and widens the debate.

Even if you take the view that he'll bomb at the next elections and Labour should go for the centre ground, that isn't necessarily a bad thing for Labour. A lot of the party aren't ready to embrace another 'Tony'-esque centre-ground charmer; an electoral massacre for a lefty will show them the error of their ways. They could get over the identity crisis and unite behind a compelling centrist candidate far quicker this way.

CLAPTON

N1AK wrote: »

. They could get over the identity crisis and unite behind a compelling centrist candidate far quicker this way.

maybe they should think about policies and not about the 'right' candidate

Generali

N1AK wrote: »

I'm not sure what about that particular plan seems so bonkers to you; in fact it rather seems that you've already made your mind up that it must be bonkers, thus through those tinted goggles it appears so; a lack of rational consideration on your part.

What percentage of people do you think would opt out of funding the army (in a way that doesn't mean paying less tax)? Virtually none. It would hardly influence the military budget, and it would give people who do not wish to fund a military the ability to do so (much like how the WI has accommodated Quaker pacificism even during world wars).

Perhaps you could explain why exactly this idea is bonkers?

Firstly taxes aren't optional.

Secondly, you are just guessing that hardly anyone would opt out. I guess everyone would and my guess is exactly as valid as yours.

Thirdly, it's impossible to administer as taxes all go into a central pot and come out of a central pot. What you are doing is reducing the size of that pot.


Forthly, if I can decide that my taxes shouldn't go on military spending I should also get to decide whether it is spent on abortion or gay marriage or anything else I might choose to take a moral position on.

That's just four off the cuff. I suspect that given time I could come up with a couple of dozen. I won't though.

martinsurrey

N1AK wrote: »

I don't support him, but I also struggle to find any passion to oppose him with. Corbyn's support strikes me as a scream of frustration by a large chunk of the population who are sick and tired of 'politics'.

while I think your sentiment is right, "large chunk of the population" is going a bit too far.

554,000 people are registered to vote, if he gets 50% first round votes, that's 277k votes, IF every member votes, if they get a 75% turnout, that's 170k votes, its just some of those 170k are very very loud.

N1AK wrote: »

I'm inclined towards the view that Corbyn winning will end up being a good thing for liberal/progressive part of the population. I can't see him winning an election, but it invigorates their politics and widens the debate.

Impotent talk is impotent, if labour are polling at 2-odd%, its not a debate the Tories need to have as they are not a credible opposition.

N1AK wrote: »

Even if you take the view that he'll bomb at the next elections and Labour should go for the centre ground, that isn't necessarily a bad thing for Labour. A lot of the party aren't ready to embrace another 'Tony'-esque centre-ground charmer; an electoral massacre for a lefty will show them the error of their ways. They could get over the identity crisis and unite behind a compelling centrist candidate far quicker this way.

This is at best what I hope will happen.

Generali

N1AK wrote: »

I don't support him, but I also struggle to find any passion to oppose him with. Corbyn's support strikes me as a scream of frustration by a large chunk of the population who are sick and tired of 'politics'.

I'm inclined towards the view that Corbyn winning will end up being a good thing for liberal/progressive part of the population. I can't see him winning an election, but it invigorates their politics and widens the debate.

Even if you take the view that he'll bomb at the next elections and Labour should go for the centre ground, that isn't necessarily a bad thing for Labour. A lot of the party aren't ready to embrace another 'Tony'-esque centre-ground charmer; an electoral massacre for a lefty will show them the error of their ways. They could get over the identity crisis and unite behind a compelling centrist candidate far quicker this way.

I guess my fear is that some terrible scandal or calamity befalls the Tories before the election and he gets in. I honestly believe that Mr Corbyn would be utterly disastrous for the UK.

The thing is, it's all very well to be sick of politics but ultimately they are what get things done. Implementation isn't as glamorous as heckling from the sidelines but ultimately it's how a country is run.

Most of what Mr Corbyn seems to be announcing as policy sounds straight out of the Militant Tendency manifesto from about 1972. I mean promising to reopen mines that hadn't made a profit in decades just before the biggest climate change summit in history in the face of a collapsing coal price...? It's just nuts. He's not even thinking this stuff through.

Generali

cells wrote: »

Can you explain what you mean by the telco vs gas and electric ?

What I mean about telcos vs gas/electricity is that if the efficiencies brought to these formerly state owned monopolies was as the result of something other than privatisation then we'd expect to see them occur at the same time rather than when they were being sold off, many years apart.

I don't think it's impossible for a state owned company to operate efficiently. History shows us that this is an infrequent event.

Generali

So, it's the last day of the election and Lord Ashcroft has piped in with his, as always well informed, view:

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/09/project-red-dawn/?utm_source=Lord+Ashcroft+Polls&utm_campaign=8202ddf2f7-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b70c7aec0a-8202ddf2f7-71627885

Five years ago I conducted some research to find out why people in the Labour movement thought they had lost the 2010 election and what they thought they should do about it. They believed people had failed to appreciate what Labour had achieved, that credulous swing voters had been influenced by the right-wing media, and that although Labour’s policies had been right, they had not been communicated well. Accordingly, they expected the coalition government to prove so dreadful that people would soon see the error of their ways: Labour would not need to make any big changes in order to win the following election.

Well, we know how that story ends. Labour is reduced to 232 seats in the House of Commons, a net loss of 24 since its 2010 defeat, and won only 30 per cent of the national vote. The question for the new leader, whose identity we will know on Saturday, is not just how the party can start winning again, but whether Labour as we know it will survive. (continues)

I rather liked Jon Cruddas's quote too about Mr Corbyn turning Labour into an 80s Trotskyist tribute act too.

Well we find out on Saturday who won.