Corbynomics: A Dystopia

Mistermeaner

He's a d1c£ isn't he

antrobus

LHW99 wrote: »

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"

I think the question of social mobility and education boils down to the conclusion that it actually doesn't make that much difference.

The grammar/secondary modern system selected by means of an examination at the age of 11, the comprehensive system selects by means of the parents ability to buy a house in the right catchment area.

So it goes.

Conrad

Shocking yesterday that several Labour Cabinet members could not answer the most basic of questions on the manifesto,, including Emilly Thornberry on radio four refusing to answer all questions on manifesto detail such as when free University education will begin.

Thier bloke on Newsnight last night could not give any answers when the manifesto was drilled down into.

Contrast to Hammond this morning, brimming with facts and figures.

Warning, get ready for a much more expensive mortgage if Labour win. Thier plans for vastly more debt to pass onto future generations is pure entitlement greed.

Fella

It hasn't been mentioned much but Labour snuck in a likely Land Tax too. Anybody with an expensive house (for example those in the south east who generally don't vote Labour) would be hammered.

[Deleted User]

Conrad wrote: »

Shocking yesterday that several Labour Cabinet members could not answer the most basic of questions on the manifesto,, including Emilly Thornberry on radio four refusing to answer all questions on manifesto detail such as when free University education will begin.

Thier bloke on Newsnight last night could not give any answers when the manifesto was drilled down into.

Contrast to Hammond this morning, brimming with facts and figures.

Warning, get ready for a much more expensive mortgage if Labour win. Thier plans for vastly more debt to pass onto future generations is pure entitlement greed.

The 'wait for the manifesto' line might have worked a few weeks ago, but now that it is out there, we are getting the 'over the next few weeks' things will become clear.

This appears to be what Labour thinks passes for debate. Corbyn and his supporters do their nut because May won't debate their man, yet nobody appears to know how the funding will be found to nationalise National Grid (about £40bn) nor, when pressed, explain what the promise to abolish tuition fees ACTUALLY MEANS.

Of course, these intentional delaying tactics couldn't in any way be related to the fact that those with postal votes will be voting well before the 'wait for the next couple of weeks' period has expired, could it ?

Politicians have things called Party Political broadcasts when they can spout whatever they want unchallenged, in whatever way they want. When senior politicians are put up to represent their party, and are being interviewed ON THEIR OWN POLICIES, to fumble around and blatantly refuse to answer straightforward questions just looks patetic. Like that balloon on Newsnight last night who when pressed on student finance appeared to claim that Labour was being 'put on trial'!:rotfl: Imagine that? A journalist having the nerve to ask how a policy might be implemented? :rotfl: Whatever next?

WR

Zxcv_Bnm

It need not cost anything to nationalise any company.

You just pass a law making it illegal for them to charge anyone anything for what they do.

Their revenues and share price collapse and you then buy the company for nothing having crippled it first.

Of course this will wreck the pension funds etc who tend to own utility shares, but they're for old people who don't vote Labour anyway so who cares.

Moby

antrobus wrote: »

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



A flawed system is preferable to a failed system.

My point is we shouldn't be idealogical about systems at all. We should acknowledge the failures of capitalism as we do state control. That was my point and I listed the areas where a market based economy doesn't work. That 'overview' link you give above re. China hides a multitude of problems. The market economy of China is still controlled by the state and there is only one political party that can control future planning.

Spidernick

Wild_Rover wrote: »

Politicians have things called Party Political broadcasts when they can spout whatever they want unchallenged, in whatever way they want. When senior politicians are put up to represent their party, and are being interviewed ON THEIR OWN POLICIES, to fumble around and blatantly refuse to answer straightforward questions just looks patetic. Like that balloon on Newsnight last night who when pressed on student finance appeared to claim that Labour was being 'put on trial'!:rotfl: Imagine that? A journalist having the nerve to ask how a policy might be implemented? :rotfl: Whatever next?

WR

Yet there are people on these boards who continue this nonsense about so-called 'BBC Left-wing bias', when all these posters are doing is showing their own bias. The BBC gives all politicians a hard time, as it should.

TrickyTree83

Moby wrote: »

My point is we shouldn't be idealogical about systems at all. We should acknowledge the failures of capitalism as we do state control. That was my point and I listed the areas where a market based economy doesn't work. That 'overview' link you give above re. China hides a multitude of problems. The market economy of China is still controlled by the state and there is only one political party that can control future planning.

ideology

noun
1.
a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

antrobus

Moby wrote: »

My point is we shouldn't be idealogical about systems at all. We should acknowledge the failures of capitalism as we do state control. That was my point and I listed the areas where a market based economy doesn't work. That 'overview' link you give above re. China hides a multitude of problems. The market economy of China is still controlled by the state and there is only one political party that can control future planning.

My point is that state capitalism does not work. The history of the twentieth century demonstrates that. China abandoned state capitalism in favour of market capitalism, and as a result 800 million people were taken out of poverty.

Market capitalism does work, it produces economic growth. Which pays for things. And is the test of whether or not it works. The fact that there are areas where it produces results that people don't like are fixable. Eventually. That's what governments are for.

What this means is that we should all reject that kind of Marxist-Leninist nonsense at the earliest opportunity. Even if it does arise in the form of pseudo-Trotskist transitional demands. See the current Labour manifesto.:)

P.S. Note that the World Bank states that that, "China has shifted from a centrally-planned to a market-based economy", and that "its market reforms are incomplete". Its economy is not controlled by the state.