Corbynomics: A Dystopia

antrobus

Conrad wrote: »

Interesting vid here on how fascism was a product of the left, not the right;


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytu5Kz6Y0CQ

The Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or as we say over here the National Socialist German Workers' Party, was named as the national socialist party in order to distinguish its ideology from the international socialism of the Communist Party.

As far as I can recall, the economic policy of the NSDAP was basically to run large fiscal deficits until the money ran out and then invade Poland. Followed by the rest of Europe. Which they basically looted.

I'm not sure that's an option I'd choose.:)

Fella

antrobus wrote: »

A total of 12,877,869 people voted Labour. Are you saying that there are 12.9 million people with an IQ under 70?

I think that's statistically unlikely.

Well you'd hope

But re the 12.9 million, only some would have been in the sub-70 IQ bracket. Most would simply have been the lifelong Labour voters who never do anything but vote Labour.

The absolute worst Labour has managed in the 72 years since the war ended is 209 seats, so it's safe to assume that's the least they would win, if they painted a dog-turd red & stuck a rosette on it, purely because of the percentage who will only ever vote Labour.

Corbyn struggled to about 50 more seats, probably mainly courtesy of the students he lied to. Especially the ones who voted twice.

Tromking

antrobus wrote: »

No, it's down to you to specify what you mean by "traditional British levels of public services". I have no flippin idea myself.

Once you've done that, you can then work out how they differ from 'current British levels of public services', what its going to cost to implement them these 'traditional levels', and then work out how you're going to raise the revenue to pay for it.

Again, you seem reluctant to admit that current funding levels are causing major difficulties in some of our public services.
A traditional British level of public services for me would be a return to an NHS not running with near 100,000 staffing vacancies, where recorded crime had not risen by 10% and where our prison and probation service was not in near meltdown.
If I have a duty to tell you how more money would be raised to fund my aspirations for our public services, then you have a similar duty to justify why under current funding levels its acceptable for many of public services to be failing.

antrobus wrote: »

Personally, I'm of the opinion that sticking 5p on the basic rate of income tax should raise about £25 billion, and that should be enough to sort out the immediate problems with the NHS, community care, whatever. I would not do it all in one go. Over the 'life of parliament' should do it.

However, I strongly suspect that such a proposal might well not make it into any party's manifesto on the obvious grounds that voters don't like higher taxes.

Putting the dubious maths of it aside, the perceived popularity of the last Labour Party manifesto showed that there is IMO a growing appetite to at least discuss a more progressive way of funding public spending.

Tromking

Conrad wrote: »

If the left were more proportionate and sensible on spending demands we might get agreement.

Conversely if the Right were upfront on the consequences of the rationing of money into our public services and told the populous this is all we can afford so suck it up, instead we get told there`s billion of pounds worth of efficiencies to made which won't unduly affect delivery. A level of dishonesty that shames a democracy in my view.

Fella

Tromking wrote: »

Conversely if the Right were upfront on the consequences of the rationing of money into our public services and told the populous this is all we can afford so suck it up, instead we get told there`s billion of pounds worth of efficiencies to made which won't unduly affect delivery. A level of dishonesty that shames a democracy in my view.

I think you're veering into hysteria. The Tories have made plenty of speeches pointing out that austerity is unpleasant medicine.

Every attempt the Tories even TRY to make about us having to live within our means, is drowned out by a chorus of Labour MPs, Unions, and people like yourself saying how evil they are for suggesting it. And you're saying it's the TORIES who are dishonest on this subject?

Eric_the_half_a_bee

Tromking wrote: »

Conversely if the Right were upfront on the consequences of the rationing of money into our public services and told the populous this is all we can afford so suck it up, instead we get told there`s billion of pounds worth of efficiencies to made which won't unduly affect delivery. A level of dishonesty that shames a democracy in my view.

The left doesn't believe in rationing money?

Tromking

Fella wrote: »

I think you're veering into hysteria. The Tories have made plenty of speeches pointing out that austerity is unpleasant medicine.

Every attempt the Tories even TRY to make about us having to live within our means, is drowned out by a chorus of Labour MPs, Unions, and people like yourself saying how evil they are for suggesting it. And you're saying it's the TORIES who are dishonest on this subject?

I missed the speeches on massive NHS vacancies ,the £4 billion overtime bill, lawless prisons and the 10% rise in recorded crime.
Why do you and the Tories deny these facts?

Thrugelmir

Tromking wrote: »

I missed the speeches on massive NHS vacancies ,the £4 billion overtime bill, lawless prisons and the 10% rise in recorded crime.
Why do you and the Tories deny these facts?

A reflection of the world it is today. Unfortunately there's no quick fixes. For a multitude of reasons. Making speeches is all well and good. What's required is bottom up fixing.

Fella

Tromking wrote: »

I missed the speeches on massive NHS vacancies ,the £4 billion overtime bill, lawless prisons and the 10% rise in recorded crime.
Why do you and the Tories deny these facts?

When have I denied anything? Try not to put words in my mouth.

I don't dispute there is pain, I dispute who's to blame for it. Which is resoundingly Labour, under Brown.

Running up a huge deficit then having to pay it down will always be much much worse than if you'd lived within your means from the start. Whatever pain is being experienced now is the direct result of over spending by Brown, nothing to do with the Tories.

Likewise the pain being experienced now is nothing compared to what you'd get after a Corbyn administration. This would look like a carnival in comparison.

It must be an easy life being a Labour MP. You get to spend other people's money wherever you like, then when somebody else has to try to pay back the debt you run up you just sit back for 5 years & call them the nasty party.

Tromking

Fella wrote: »

When have I denied anything? Try not to put words in my mouth.

I don't dispute there is pain, I dispute who's to blame for it. Which is resoundingly Labour, under Brown.

Running up a huge deficit then having to pay it down will always be much much worse than if you'd lived within your means from the start. Whatever pain is being experienced now is the direct result of over spending by Brown, nothing to do with the Tories.

When you stop going over what is rapidly becoming ancient history ie. Brown's stewardship of the economy, then you should turn your attention to this and the last government's record surely?
I simply don't recall being told that the "pain" would be of this magnitude in time and depth and be so utterly devastating to some of our public services. The only two extrapolations I can make is that we were either lied to or the Tories were incompetent and didn't think through the consequences of defunding our public services in the fashion that they did.
The Tories were undoubtedly handed a duff hand in 2010, that does not excuse them the scrutiny on how they deal with that duff hand. I expect my politicians to deal with the deficit without recorded crime going up 10%. How about you?