Corbynomics: A Dystopia

antrobus

Tromking wrote: »

Well of course it is, I've never said otherwise to my knowledge...

I see, you don't understand wat I was saying. You said "Apologies for missing your admission that the austerity as implemented by the Tories needs an immediate rise on the basic rate of income tax".

I was taking the p*** out of your attempt to use cheap rhetoric to make a party political point.:)

Tromking wrote: »

..Look past your predilection to stating the obvious and recognise the the fact that political choices have defunded public services and in some areas effected delivery to the public severely, and again to my knowledge I don't recall being told that would happen. The fact that this Government is spending half its time denying the problems in our public services, would backup the theory that its engaged in a doctrinal defunding exercise rather than a managed rationing of money to produce efficiencies, but not effect delivery. ...

We have elections in order to determine what political choices have to be made. Individuals are free to express their opinion on what political choices should be made.

You want to make the political choice of abandoning the world's poor. It's not a choice I would make. But it takes all sorts.:)

Tromking wrote: »

..You and others on here can glibly say "we can't afford it" and not worry how public services perform, responsible Governments however cannot.

I have never said anything of the kind. Either glibly or otherwise. Please don't make things up. What I have said, is that anything can be afforded, so long as you can find the money to pay for it.

onlyroz

Wild_Rover wrote: »

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

It really is simple. People who are pre-working age get the smallest amount because they are supported by their parents. Healthy working age get a middle amount because they are able to increase their income via work. The retired and disabled get the most because they are not expected to work.

Difficulties arise if you have a disability but are still able to work - perhaps you would need to put in a claim to cover your disability- related expenses, e.g. mobility aids, home adaptions or whatever.

I also think geographical location should be irrelevant. One of the benefits of a universal income is that it makes people freer to pursue opportunities that they might not be able to under a standard benefit system. E.g. those with an entrepreneurial or creative bent are able to give an idea a try that they wouldn't previously have been able to do. And there is a smaller penalty for living in areas with fewer jobs, or perhaps only seasonal jobs like agriculture or tourism.

Thrugelmir

Tromking wrote: »

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.

Sums up my point succinctly. Ignore and airbrush out the points of discussion for which there's no comprehension. Simply repeat the mantra over and over again.

What's next week's topic going to be?

Tromking

antrobus wrote: »

What I have said, is that anything can be afforded, so long as you can find the money to pay for it.

....or conversely, services must be afforded if you as a Government say that despite the cuts they'll still be provided.

Tromking

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Sums up my point succinctly. Ignore and airbrush out the points of discussion for which there's no comprehension. Simply repeat the mantra over and over again.

That`s rich coming from you.
I refuse to comprehend poorer public services when my Government has said delivery won't be compromised.

[Deleted User]

onlyroz wrote: »

It really is simple. People who are pre-working age get the smallest amount because they are supported by their parents. Healthy working age get a middle amount because they are able to increase their income via work. The retired and disabled get the most because they are not expected to work.

Difficulties arise if you have a disability but are still able to work - perhaps you would need to put in a claim to cover your disability- related expenses, e.g. mobility aids, home adaptions or whatever.

I also think geographical location should be irrelevant. One of the benefits of a universal income is that it makes people freer to pursue opportunities that they might not be able to under a standard benefit system. E.g. those with an entrepreneurial or creative bent are able to give an idea a try that they wouldn't previously have been able to do. And there is a smaller penalty for living in areas with fewer jobs, or perhaps only seasonal jobs like agriculture or tourism.

Don't get me wrong, there is a kernel of an idea there, but it would take to long to point out the problems I see with what you have posted there as I'm knackered and heading to my kip - so I'll take the last one - if the payment is universal and equal, yet "basic", are you seriously suggesting that the same sum would 'do' for someone in Tobermory and someone in central London? Seems to me that either the Tobermory figure would be ridiculously high, or the London figure ridiculously low.

It's what I mean about coming up with ideas that SEEM simple and straightforward - in my experience they are usually neither.

Night night!

WR

BobQ

antrobus wrote: »

It's a long thread. 229 pages.

:

A fitting tribute to the man who started it. Whatever happened to Generali?

Fella

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/08/jeremy-corbyn-still-cannot-bear-to-condemn-his-fallen-idols-in-venezuela/

The demand that Corbyn condemn Maduro, and the legacy of Chavez, has been ridiculed by some on the left. Why should he speak out about a little local difficulty in Venezuela, they assert, when Theresa May hasn’t bothered herself to attack Saudi Arabia’s human rights record? But that is to confuse the sometimes ugly demands of realpolitik — where prime ministers have to build relations with countries which don’t live up to western standards of democracy — with the fawning tributes which Corbyn has repeatedly paid to Chavez and his successor.

It wasn’t the interests of the nation which drove Corbyn to attend a vigil for Hugo Chavez in 2013 and praise him for providing ‘inspiration to all of us fighting back against neoliberalism and austerity in Europe and showing us there is a better way of doing things. It’s called socialism, it’s called social justice and it’s something that Venezuela has made a big step towards.’ Corbyn was swept along by Chavez and Maduro out of naive ideology. He has never outgrown student politics, with its need for heroes and pin-up revolutionaries.

antrobus

BobQ wrote: »

A fitting tribute to the man who started it. Whatever happened to Generali?

He got booted off MSE for some reason. It's those three letters 'PPR' that appear under his username. I think we're not supposed to talk about that sort of thing in MSE land.

antrobus

Tromking wrote: »

....or conversely, services must be afforded if you as a Government say that despite the cuts they'll still be provided.

Then there wouldn't be any "cuts". There would be tax rises to enable these services that "must be afforded" to be provided. Which is just a different kind of austerity.

That's what happens when a government is faced with a big black deep hole of a deficit of 10% of GDP. You have to get the deficit back under control, and the only way to do that is through a combination of cutting costs and increasing revenue.

Which is what the Coalition government of 2010-15 did and what the post 2015 Conservative governments have done. You may not like the combination they have picked. I may not like the combination they have picked. But that's politics for you.