Corbynomics: A Dystopia

setmefree2

This fella sums up perfectly how I feel.

Imagine a London where the problem of finding or affording food is so bad that food banks would be luxury. Instead you are forced to rake through the rubbish bins for morsels to feed your family. Imagine a London where elected officials are at risk of kidnapping in the middle of the night for speaking out about the economic and social catastrophe engulfing the city. Imagine a London where the pound in your pocket is losing value at an eye-watering pace – more like Zimbabwe or Weimar Germany.
Imagine the shelves of Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Aldi are empty, where shopping at Waitrose would be like dining at the Ritz. Imagine you go to demonstrate peacefully on a march down Whitehall or hear speakers at Trafalgar Square, only to be greeted with teargas and see some of your number beaten up or dragged off never to be seen again.

What if Labour mayor Sadiq Khan was “disappeared” by Theresa May’s goons, only to be “returned to house arrest” under pressure from international outrage?
If that was London, how would you expect Jeremy Corbyn, not just the leader of the Labour party but a London MP, to react? Surely he would have his clenched fist in the air, striking a Marxist poster pose seeking to mobilise civil resistance?

Would you expect of him – no, demand of him – that he protest in the strongest possible terms about the violent and illegal behaviour of the Metropolitan Police?
Remember, this is the same Jeremy Corbyn who, without any evidence, was ready to condemn the Tories in local and central government for allowing the circumstances that caused the Grenfell Tower tragedy. Words come easy to Corbyn. Surely he could condemn a government that behaved so appallingly in treating its people?
This is also the same Jeremy Corbyn who castigated May via Twitter when she took some time to disagree with President Trump after he introduced his refugee ban. Corbyn tweeted: “if you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor”. Tweets too come easy to Corbyn.

But wait. This story is not about London. It is about Caracas and the whole of Venezuela. The perpetrators of brutal ex-judicial murder are not members of the Metropolitan Police, but sinister helmeted cops on motorbikes, targeting and then grabbing ordinary citizens, beating them up and dragging them off to who-knows-what-fate.
It’s not fake news – anyone can look it up on YouTube.
Venezuela is going to hell in a handcart and it is being taken there by its socialist President Nicolas Maduro – one of Corbyn’s “friends”. (Rather like Corbyn previously made “friends” with people in Hamas, Hezbollah, and of course the Provisional IRA.)

By your words shall ye be known. Everyone needs to know that Corbyn has no words for the latest victims of Marxist socialism.

http://www.cityam.com/269948/jeremy-corbyn-has-abandoned-victims-venezuelan-socialism

Malthusian

I doubt you would need the other taxes having abolished all the other benefits and sacked the tens of thousands of civil servants who used to administer them. (Which is the elephant in the room in discussions of universal basic income and the real reason it won't happen under the current system as we know it.)

Practically speaking it would have to be set at different levels for children, working-age adults, pensioners and the disabled and I don't see any contradiction with either the words "universal" or "basic". If it is offered to all of them it is universal. If it is just enough to keep body and soul together it is basic. The disabled need more to keep body and soul together than others - being disabled is expensive - and children need less.

Malthusian

"if you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor" - Couldn't have put it better myself. Of course Corbyn isn't neutral in the situation of Venezuela, he is explicitly and unashamedly pro-oppressor.

Fella

Malthusian wrote: »

"if you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor" - Couldn't have put it better myself. Of course Corbyn isn't neutral in the situation of Venezuela, he is explicitly and unashamedly pro-oppressor.

You only have to look at how he's run the Labour party since being in charge. He pays lip-service to party unity & listening to everybody but that's all it is. He demands total obsequience from the moderate Labour MPs. This article is a taste of what they can expect as Corbyn & his vile Momentum cabal extend control over the party:

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/jeremy-corbyn-supporters-demand-luciana-13287439

At a meeting of the Wavertree Labour branch last night, nine out of 10 positions on the group’s executive committee went to members of Momentum.

In response, Ms Berger has released a joint statement with the new group secretary, which heaps praise on Mr Corbyn and his recent election result.

“Luciana needs to get on board quite quickly now."
"she will have to be answerable to us."

Tromking

Fella wrote: »

Yet again you talk as if the choice is to reduce public spending or not.

It isn't. The choice is reduce public spending now or reduce it by much more further down the line when the country is bankrupt & repayment of interest on our debts is sky-high.

You've already demonstrated that you cannot stand even the small amount of austerity imposed by the Tories to reduce some of the deficit Labour handed them. Just think how much you would hate actual austerity, the kind that would be necessary post-Corbyn.

Wow, talk about you continually missing the point.
The choice is about reducing public spending without effecting the core purpose of our public services, which is to deliver a service to the public. The clue's in the name.
I say again, I don't remember the Tories standing on an agenda of austerity that would put our prisons into crisis or as we heard yesterday mean that our maternity wards would close at regular intervals due to the lack of beds. You give Government a free ride when you accept poor preforming services when their duty is to run them properly. If they can't run them properly, then be upfront with the public and say why.

[Deleted User]

Malthusian wrote: »

I doubt you would need the other taxes having abolished all the other benefits and sacked the tens of thousands of civil servants who used to administer them. (Which is the elephant in the room in discussions of universal basic income and the real reason it won't happen under the current system as we know it.)

Practically speaking it would have to be set at different levels for children, working-age adults, pensioners and the disabled and I don't see any contradiction with either the words "universal" or "basic". If it is hoffered to all of them it is universal. If it is just enough to keep body and soul together it is basic. The disabled need more to keep body and soul together than others - being disabled is expensive - and children need less.

I know where you are coming from, but why does an older working age adult need more (or less) than a just retired pensioner? Would a perfectly healthy just retired Pensioner receive the same as a 105 year old? What about degrees of disability? Doesn't the term 'disability' cover an enormous range of circumstances? How would you differentiate between different ages of "children" - would a new born baby receive the same, more or less than a 15 and three-quarters year old? What about students? Would you differentiate between school-leavers and mature students?

What about geographical location? Would two individuals in otherwise identical circumstances receive the same if one lived in Tobermory and one lived in central London?

I don't think such a system would be as straightforward as you set out.

WR

Fella

Tromking wrote: »

I say again, I don't remember the Tories standing on an agenda of austerity that would put our prisons into crisis

You use that expression a lot, but, just the same as everybody else who opposes austerity, you care about what affects you but choose to ignore the fact there's a finite amount of money to spend and everybody think's their own area is the most important.

You say we have a prisons crisis? What about the pensions crisis? Or the debt crisis? Or the education crisis? Or the policing crisis? Or the NHS crisis? Or the cyber-crime crisis? Or the terrorism crisis? Or the environmental crisis? Or any of a million other crises people like to cite. If it rains for a week we'll be hearing how there's a flood crisis & the Government should be spending tens of billions more on flood defences. The list is endless. The supply of money isn't.

Thrugelmir

Tromking wrote: »

The choice is about reducing public spending without effecting the core purpose of our public services, which is to deliver a service to the public. The clue's in the name.

Maybe so. However politicians themselves need to act responsibly.
The "maternity crisis" being another example of an ill thought out rant about the NHS. Creating another bout of people expressing their "right" to have something provided to their personal requirements. Rather than a meaningful adult discussion as to how complex running a maternity unit actually is.

Tromking

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Maybe so. However politicians themselves need to act responsibly.
The "maternity crisis" being another example of an ill thought out rant about the NHS. Creating another bout of people expressing their "right" to have something provided to their personal requirements. Rather than a meaningful adult discussion as to how complex running a maternity unit actually is.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect established norms in public services especially when politicians haven't told us to expect any different, and are in fact engaged in an exercise in denying any negative effects to their cuts.

Tromking

Fella wrote: »

You use that expression a lot, but, just the same as everybody else who opposes austerity, you care about what affects you but choose to ignore the fact there's a finite amount of money to spend and everybody think's their own area is the most important.

You say we have a prisons crisis? What about the pensions crisis? Or the debt crisis? Or the education crisis? Or the policing crisis? Or the NHS crisis? Or the cyber-crime crisis? Or the terrorism crisis? Or the environmental crisis? Or any of a million other crises people like to cite. If it rains for a week we'll be hearing how there's a flood crisis & the Government should be spending tens of billions more on flood defences. The list is endless. The supply of money isn't.

I expect our government to save money without our vital services being in crisis as a result. Don't you?