Corbynomics: A Dystopia

cogito

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?

Well why don't we just hand over €40bn to the EU?

Tromking

cogito wrote: »

Well why don't we just hand over €40bn to the EU?

Relevance?

Thrugelmir

Tromking wrote: »

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?

You cannot rectify the mismanagement of the economy over 14 years (1997-2010) in just 7 years.

LHW99

A traditional British level of public services for me would be a return to an NHS not running with near 100,000 staffing vacancies,

I guess it wasn't like that in the 1950's and 60's, but then in those days you would be put in a ward wing of 30 beds. There would be one staff nurse at night to 2 wings. When you got cancer they cut out what they could and sent you home to die, there was no in-vitro fertilisation, mental health care was locked wards and high levels of sedation, and pre-term babies were unlikely to survive under 30 weeks.
It was certainly cheaper.

Tromking

Thrugelmir wrote: »

You cannot rectify the mismanagement of the economy over 14 years (1997-2010) in just 7 years.

Yet Osborne said he'd wipe out the deficit in 5.
Was he lying or just incompetent?

Fella

Tromking wrote: »

When you stop going over what is rapidly becoming ancient history ie. Brown's stewardship of the economy

What a silly comment. It's hardly ancient history when we're still nowhere near recovering from what he did.

Tromking wrote: »

Yet Osborne said he'd wipe out the deficit in 5.
Was he lying or just incompetent?

You really need to pick a side. You're alternating between posts ranting at Tory cuts & posts complaining that the deficit wasn't dealt with quickly enough.

Thrugelmir

Tromking wrote: »

Yet Osborne said he'd wipe out the deficit in 5.
Was he lying or just incompetent?

Both. Osborne has gone. Politicians these days have no staying power.

Brown apparently abolished boom and bust. Lectured prudence endlessly. Hardly surprising he has taken a back seat. As his credibility was shredded.

antrobus

Tromking wrote: »

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.

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.

What the *** are you on about? I have just told you that I would stick " 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".

What do you propose?

michaels

Does anyone else find the redefining of the word progressive to mean 'equality of outcome (regardless of overall welfare)' annoying?

[Deleted User]

michaels wrote: »

Does anyone else find the redefining of the word progressive to mean 'equality of outcome (regardless of overall welfare)' annoying?

I think I can agree with that.... equality of opportunity is one thing, and I have no problem with that..... what is more problematic is equality of outcome and how reasonable it is for the state to rectify the outcomes of bad choices.

How do you equalise the educational outcomes for children who have parents with greatly differing views on the importance of education?

How do you improve the health of children whose parents have no interest in a healthy diet and healthier lifestyle?

Later in life, those who have saved and invested will probably have more disposable income than those who didn't. As long as the state provides a basic safety net, I have no problem with that.

I'm well aware that these sorts of questions begin to introduce the concept of the 'deserving and undeserving', but I think that these types of factors produce outcomes that just can't be equalised without the kind of state interference in everyday life that would not be tolerated.

Freedom must include the freedom to make bad choices and to pretend that the state can insulate people from the outcome of bad choices is wicked. It is the equivalent of the entire population putting a bet on the Grand National, then the companies paying out all the actual winners, then reimbursing all the losers as well, not only their stake money but in addition giving them the same returns as those picking the winning horse. (Other, probably better analogies are available ).

Will parents be prevented from providing extra tuition for their kids, for no other reason than other children won't have it, because not every parent will want to do it, or doesn’t see the value of it, or be able to afford it, or be able to afford it but instead decides to spend the money on other things?

Should everyone have free gym membership because not everyone can or will pay for it, but most would benefit from it?

Those who would say that they insist the state must intervene better get ready for the flak that will follow - try to stress the importance of education and you will hear the push back from parents who say that the state is too dictatorial (e.g. no holidays during term time/'unfairness' about kids passing exams because of private tutors).

Try to impose healthy eating in schools? Parents complain and you have the absurdity of parents being filmed passing chips through school railings ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/5349392.stm )

Regularly save to obtain additional income in later life - shares, pensions etc? You then have folk who didn't save or invest staying it isn't fair that you are better off. You even get demands that folk who have saved and invested shouldn't get a state pension at all as they don't 'need' it.

For me the most troubling aspect is the effect on children of the bad choices of the parents..... good luck sorting that out!

WR