Corbynomics: A Dystopia

Moby

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

Problem is people can't see beyond their own prejudices. Corbyn is symbolic of 'left wing' thinking and that's that. He's nicely pigeon holed.....but the fact is Jeremy is not being ignored. His views are being talked about and that to me is a good thing. It is refreshing to listen to an alternative view.
Went to see Andy Burnham last night in Euston....he was introduced by a rabble rousing speech from Prescott:eek:
He seems very driven! He didn't have an easy time. I liked him and thought how many tory politicians would put themselves on the line in front of hostility like Burnham did at Anfield for instance? My reasons for feeling positive about him:-
1. He seems to have genuinely learned from the Blair/Brown years and changed views on certain things. Nothing wrong with that.
2. He seems to me to be the only candidate who would keep Labour unified. Kendall can't for obvious reasons. Corbyn has rebelled too often to expect loyalty. Cooper may also be inclusive but remaining suspicions about Balls and Brown having influence?
3. The ego battle between Blair and Brown has been ignored/forgotten by many. The factionalism based on their ego's ruined the effectiveness of govmt and both have a lot to answer for imo. Through their own ego's they were distracted from their job's of defending the people they were supposed to be helping. I think Burnham is aware of this and does at least seem to realise we need a new type of politics.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You miss the point.

It's not for me to come up with all the figures. The point is that people are deriding him for this sort of stuff without coming up with the figures.

All I have said is that you cannot look at the cost of import alone. I haven't said that coal mining would or wouldn't be beneficial. I've just asked that all the factors are looked at instead of just how much it costs to import.

You HAVE said it wouldn't be beneficial. So you are making a statement. I'm not making such a statement (please point out where I have). You should be providing figures as you are coming to an absolute conclusion.

the answer to the question of whether or not the government should subsidise industry runs a little like this

-firstly are you a Keynsian who believes that in times of low demand that government should increase demand.

-secondly : if you are a keynsian then how best should the government increase demand (low interest rates /QE, infrastructure projects, digging holes and filling them in, more nurses in the NHS, pot holes filled, social housing etc)

-thirdly : if you believe the best way of stimulating demand is to choose specific industries then would one choose coal minding as giving the best value rather than something with a better long term future?

in the current climate one might ask

-does the economy need a substantial boost?
-is there high unemployment?
-if there is high unemployment is adding jobs in mining the best of the many alternatives (nurses, research funding, new technology, green technology etc)
-how long would the subsidises be guaranteed?

Once the economy expands would the mining jobs crowd out more production jobs?

etc etc.



The political point about Corbyn here is, of all the possible thing to spend public money on is why choose mining to subsidise?

Answers on a post card............

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

The political point about Corbyn here is, of all the possible thing to spend public money on is why choose mining to subsidise?

Answers on a post card............

Postcard answer here.

He hasn't chosen to spend money on it. He's simply opened the debate saying some clean burn (or something) mines could possibly be opened again. He's not made a pledge to do so.

michaels

CLAPTON wrote: »

The political point about Corbyn here is, of all the possible thing to spend public money on is why choose mining to subsidise?

Answers on a post card............

What an easy question, unions are corbyn's key support group and coal mines are synonymous with british unionism and the defeat of the unions by elected government during the miners strike is rightly seen by the unions as the moment that the elected will of the people overcame the vested interest of the few so what better way to indicate that the old order of unions above electorate had been restored?

Moby

michaels wrote: »

What an easy question, unions are corbyn's key support group and coal mines are synonymous with british unionism and the defeat of the unions by elected government during the miners strike is rightly seen by the unions as the moment that the elected will of the people overcame the vested interest of the few so what better way to indicate that the old order of unions above electorate had been restored?

You completely ignore of course the fact that 'the people' as you call them are not a homogenised group which are automatically anti union. Many 'people' like me for instance are in a union. With regard to 'vested interests' of the few....I would not describe the struggle for better working conditions in such a way....especially after seeing how working down a mine affected the health of my father and grandfather.

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

You completely ignore of course the fact that 'the people' as you call them are not a homogenised group which are automatically anti union. Many 'people' like me for instance are in a union. With regard to 'vested interests' of the few....I would not describe the struggle for better working conditions in such a way....especially after seeing how working down a mine affected the health of my father and grandfather.

difficult to see that the miners' strike could be seen as a struggle for better working conditions when the clear stated aim of the leaders was to bring down the elected government

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

The political point about Corbyn here is, of all the possible thing to spend public money on is why choose mining to subsidise?

Answers on a post card............

because its an industry which impacts the trade balance

spending £1 billion on subsidising coal might reduce the trade balance by more than £1 billion.

if anything is to be subsidised then it should be business that can cut imports or boost exports rather than say....needlessly subidising half the population to study modern photography art

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

because its an industry which impacts the trade balance

spending £1 billion on subsidising coal might reduce the trade balance by more than £1 billion.

if anything is to be subsidised then it should be business that can cut imports or boost exports rather than say....needlessly subidising half the population to study modern photography art

All other things being equal one would expect a home coal mining industry to reduce coal imports and so reduce the current trade deficit

but does this make us richer?
if so would we not be even richer if we subsidised the car industry to cut imports

and be even richer if we subsidised the clothing industry to cut imports


......................

michaels

CLAPTON wrote: »

difficult to see that the miners' strike could be seen as a struggle for better working conditions when the clear stated aim of the leaders was to bring down the elected government

And closing the mines has done more for the miners health and safety than any other change in the industry could have done

CLAPTON

michaels wrote: »

And closing the mines has done more for the miners health and safety than any other change in the industry could have done

yes but we must give Labour full credit here, as more miners lost their jobs under labour than under the tories