Corbynomics: A Dystopia

Fella

Spidernick wrote: »

I say again: grammar schools do absolutely nothing for social mobility, the opposite in fact.

In that case why on earth are so many Labour MPs sending their own kids to them.......?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/13/one-rule-another-everybody-else-nick-robinson-skewers-angela/

Moby

antrobus wrote: »

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.

I think you'll find there are millions of Chinese who do not share in the wealth of the market economy and if they complain they tend to disappear.

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.

You mean like those who are favour of market capitalism acknowledges its flaws? They don't tend to do so because many of them have done pretty well out of it and they put out their fear of the 'reds under the beds' arguments to howl down anyone who says the system ain't working for many. It's almost like saying we can't ever address all the flaws in capitalism I described because if there is any slippage we'll turn into a stalinist soviet or is the real motive the fact that they want to protect their privileges? Cameron called Miliband's utilities capping policy 'marxist'. May seems quite happy to have a similar policy however....is she being harangued for being a marxist lover of Venezuela!

Moby

Thrugelmir wrote: »

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.

Don't agree. Blair /Brown had to clear up the tory ERM mess and pay for the years of Thatcher cutbacks. People have short memories.

~Brock~

Moby wrote: »

Don't agree. Blair /Brown had to clear up the tory ERM mess and pay for the years of Thatcher cutbacks. People (including me) have [STRIKE]short[/STRIKE] selective memories.

There, fixed that for you.

antrobus

Spidernick wrote: »

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...

No, we already had a national health service before the NHS came into existence. All those hospitals and GPs did not magically appear out of thin air in 1948.:)

antrobus

Moby wrote: »

Don't agree. Blair /Brown had to clear up the tory ERM mess and pay for the years of Thatcher cutbacks. People have short memories.

The ERM mess had already been sorted out by 1997. In fact the UK economy was doing all right in 1997; for one thing, it was about the last time we didn't have a large balance of payments deficit.

Short memories indeed.:)

antrobus

Moby wrote: »

I think you'll find there are millions of Chinese who do not share in the wealth of the market economy and if they complain they tend to disappear....

I think you will find that the opposite is the case;

Since initiating market reforms in 1978, China has shifted from a centrally-planned to a market-based economy and has experienced rapid economic and social development. GDP growth has averaged nearly 10 percent a year—the fastest sustained expansion by a major economy in history—and has lifted more than 800 million people out of poverty.

http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/china/overview

Moby wrote: »

..You mean like those who are favour of market capitalism acknowledges its flaws? They don't tend to do so because many of them have done pretty well out of it and they put out their fear of the 'reds under the beds' arguments to howl down anyone who says the system ain't working for many. It's almost like saying we can't ever address all the flaws in capitalism I described because if there is any slippage we'll turn into a stalinist soviet or is the real motive the fact that they want to protect their privileges? Cameron called Miliband's utilities capping policy 'marxist'. May seems quite happy to have a similar policy however....is she being harangued for being a marxist lover of Venezuela!

A flawed system is preferable to a failed system.

LHW99

I say again: grammar schools do absolutely nothing for social mobility, the opposite in fact.

I am not entirely sure that there is a good argument that comprehensives increase social mobiity either. This is an interesating history of the arguments:
https://orca.cf.ac.uk/73718/2/Sally%20Power%20and%20Geoff%20Whitty%20Final.pdf
It does make the point at the end of the document that:
"We concluded that, overall that exercise (the impact of the different systems) had been 'disappointing' for those looking for decisive evidence to support one side of the debate or the other"

Fella

Todays manifesto from Corbyn makes me seriously think they actually want to lose. Insane policies that probably aren't even legally possible & they haven't even tried to pretend are costed.

There was a narrow window where Corbyn could have produced a manifesto that would have appealed to some, been harder to attack & would have forced the Tories to lurch the left in response. Nationalizing the railways has some sympathy at the moment. But nationalizing water? Seriously? when was the last time even the most ardent left-winger complained about their water? Literally not even bothering to cost any of the nationalizations? Sending out his shadow cabinet of thickos so badly briefed that they spent all day saying they had "only had 2 weeks to prepare a manifesto". Despite spending all the previous two weeks saying "everything will be fully detailed & costed in our manifesto".

An even remotely astute Corbyn could have scored a few points on manifesto day. But he's produced something so batsh*t crazy that May won't even bother to address it & the media (even the BBC) won't give her a hard ride for not doing so.

You have to think after today, that Corbyn & his movement do not believe they have even the tiniest chance of actually winning. This is just a two fingers up at the "establishment" (both Tory & Labour) while their eye is on the real prize of who'll lead what's remaining of the Labour Party post-election.

westernpromise

Fella wrote: »

Todays manifesto from Corbyn makes me seriously think they actually want to lose. Insane policies that probably aren't even legally possible & they haven't even tried to pretend are costed.

The election he is contesting is the post-GE Labour leadership election.