Corbynomics: A Dystopia

Malthusian

Just a throw away comment on a little forum. Its hardly going to change anything.

Indeed, the dialectic dictates that Corbyn's victory is inevitable, so there is no need for us to withhold our hatred and bile for the rich, the intelligentsia, the J... the 1%, etc. What do we care if people take offence when they're headed for the ash-heap of history?

Spidernick

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

The idea is to bring everyone up to the same level, not down to a lower one.

Hence the grammar schools, intelligent kids actually having a chance of a reasonable education whatever background they are from, rather than having to sit in a class disrupted by kids that have no interest in an education because they expect to live on benefits. These grammar schools will also take kids out of the state system and give the teachers more time to concentrate on kids that want to learn but don't get into grammar schools.

You do realise that grammar schools are still part of the state system?

There are countless studies that show that grammar schools do nothing for social mobility. All they amount to is a vanity project for Theresa May. Most teachers (you know the ones who actually do the job on a day-to-day basis) don't want them and think they are a very bad idea. Surely they know better than politicians (of all colours) who think they are experts on education, as they went to school decades ago?

mrginge

Moby wrote: »

I have no problem in calling rich financiers with huge bonuses and tax avoiding companies like Google 'scumbags'.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/13/millionaire-brexit-donor-targets-remain-mps

Good for you. Just so we're clear though, you think it's ok for you to use such language against the poeple that you don't like, whereas anyone who doesn't support your view is not allowed to.

Perhaps best to refrain from lecturing people since you can't even maintain a consistent approach.

antrobus

Moby wrote: »

Just a throw away comment on a little forum. Its hardly going to change anything. Never ceases to amaze me why a person with little would vote Tory...

Because they believe that a Conservative government will give them the opportunity to get more.

Thirty years of State Capitalism did nothing for the Chinese other than kill fifty million people. So, not being entirely stupid, they gave up on it, and thirty years of Market Capitalism dragged 800 million Chinese out of poverty.

Capitalism is the revolution. That's dialactical materialism. There are no shortcuts.:)

Moby wrote: »

.. The whole point of the self named Conservatives is to conserve ie keep things as they are for those who are already 'haves'. Totally understandable but why would a person who hasnt had a wage rise in years vote for that. Look at their house building record....

As in Margaret Thatcher built more council houses than Tony Blair?

Moby wrote: »

... Look at how public services are being savaged...

'I'm afraid there is no money'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8688470.stm

Whose (expletive deleted) fault is that?

Moby wrote: »

.. Look at what they do not what May says. You see Andrew Neill challenge Brandon Lewis yesterday on Sunday Politics about their record?..

Some people might look at what Labour did in 1997-2010, and conclude that the results were not good. They might then look at May and then at Corbyn, and conclude that the latter was almost guaranteed to bog things up even more given the chance.

Moby

antrobus wrote: »

Because they believe that a Conservative government will give them the opportunity to get more.

Thirty years of State Capitalism did nothing for the Chinese other than kill fifty million people. So, not being entirely stupid, they gave up on it, and thirty years of Market Capitalism dragged 800 million Chinese out of poverty.

Capitalism is the revolution. That's dialactical materialism. There are no shortcuts.:)



As in Margaret Thatcher built more council houses than Tony Blair?



'I'm afraid there is no money'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8688470.stm

Whose (expletive deleted) fault is that?



Some people might look at what Labour did in 1997-2010, and conclude that the results were not good. They might then look at May and then at Corbyn, and conclude that the latter was almost guaranteed to bog things up even more given the chance.

Blair was transformational regarding investment after years of tory cutbacks imo. China is a strange case because it combines huge state control of the media political expression etc with a market economy. IMO you need a balance of capitalism with state intervention to arbiter abuses. No-one denies there are abuses....the crash etc and there are casualties throughout society. I see them every day at work, homelessness, crime, drugs, poverty, poor education, violence/abuse in families,anti social behaviour, racism, enviromental pollution etc. You have to intervene in such areas. Market capitalism has nothing to say regarding huge areas of human activity. Also market driven responses to many of these areas can create areas of conflict of interest. That's what the state is for! Ironically many think May understands this and is actually quite interventionist compared to Cameron....I'm not convinced because she goes to Newcastle and tells people she fully understand why previous generations voted Labour but now you can vote for me.....and then says nothing about what her offer is!..........we'll see what's in Nick Timothy's manifesto this week.

antrobus

Moby wrote: »

Blair was transformational regarding investment after years of tory cutbacks imo. China is a strange case because it combines huge state control of the media political expression etc with a market economy.

But the point is that a market economy with a "huge state control of the media political expression" works, whereas a state run economy with a "huge state control of the media political expression" doesn't. What you in fact got was the Great Leap Forward and millions of dead Chinese.

Moby wrote: »

..IMO you need a balance of capitalism with state intervention to arbiter abuses. No-one denies there are abuses....the crash etc and there are casualties throughout society. I see them every day at work, homelessness, crime, drugs, poverty, poor education, violence/abuse in families,anti social behaviour, racism, enviromental pollution etc. You have to intervene in such areas. Market capitalism has nothing to say regarding huge areas of human activity. Also market driven responses to many of these areas can create areas of conflict of interest. That's what the state is for! Ironically many think May understands this and is actually quite interventionist compared to Cameron....I'm not convinced because she goes to Newcastle and tells people she fully understand why previous generations voted Labour but now you can vote for me.....and then says nothing about what her offer is!..........we'll see what's in Nick Timothy's manifesto this week.

Absolutely. But you need 'market capitalism'. You need to be in favour of market capitalism. You need to say so. And you need to understand what not to do in order to avoid f...., messing it up and ending up like Venezuela.

If we voted for Corbyn we would end up like Venezuela.

antrobus

Spidernick wrote: »

... Most teachers (you know the ones who actually do the job on a day-to-day basis) don't want them and think they are a very bad idea....

Most doctors, as in the BMA, you know the ones who actually do the job on a day-to-day basis, didn't want the NHS and thought it was a very bad idea just after WWII.

On the other hand the politicians and, as it happens almost all of them, since establishing a NHS was something all the major parties agreed on, thought otherwise.

With the benefit of 70 odd years of hindsight, who do you think was right? The doctors or the politicians?

ukcarper

antrobus wrote: »

Most doctors, as in the BMA, you know the ones who actually do the job on a day-to-day basis, didn't want the NHS and thought it was a very bad idea just after WWII.

On the other hand the politicians and, as it happens almost all of them, since establishing a NHS was something all the major parties agreed on, thought otherwise.

With the benefit of 70 odd years of hindsight, who do you think was right? The doctors or the politicians?

I suspect the doctors were thinking of their own position I'm not sure that's the case with teachers.

Thrugelmir

Originally Posted by Moby
Blair was transformational regarding investment after years of tory cutbacks imo.

On the public record that Blair and Brown fell out in 2005 over Brown's welfare spending plans. Likewise the duo inherited an economy that was already turning the corner in 1997. By 2010 Brown had totally screwed the legacy up.

Spidernick

antrobus wrote: »

Most doctors, as in the BMA, you know the ones who actually do the job on a day-to-day basis, didn't want the NHS and thought it was a very bad idea just after WWII.

On the other hand the politicians and, as it happens almost all of them, since establishing a NHS was something all the major parties agreed on, thought otherwise.

With the benefit of 70 odd years of hindsight, who do you think was right? The doctors or the politicians?

Good point, but your analogy falls down in that we already have grammar schools and can see how they operate, which was not the case when the NHS came into existence.

I say again: grammar schools do absolutely nothing for social mobility, the opposite in fact. I don't want to go into all the reasons why in depth again, but search for the 'May minded to grammer (sic) schools' (or similar title - the misspelling is ironically definitely correct) if you want to read more on this.