Corbynomics: A Dystopia

mayonnaise

whitegoods_engineer wrote: »

Hilarious that this morning on BBC 5 live, people were moaning that he didn't sing the National anthem.

Well why would he and why should he??

It seems that the right-wing press wants to impose a kind of compulsory North-Korean style leader praising. How ironic is that!

Had he sung the lines, the headlines would have been to criticise his hypocrisy.

I for one would never sing the simpering lines glorifying a rich, greedy parasitic family of aristocrats who have drained public finances and plundered public property for ever. These people receive multi-millions of benefits without cap, and are not subject to the bedroom tax (good for them or that would be a big one). None of them have a job except for holidaying endlessly in luxury. Some tough job eh?

I can remember being in a theatre some years ago where at the end, we were all expected to rise to praise our great Queen - yeah right! I stayed bum on seat watching the moronic display of idol-worship unfold before me!

Great post.
However, I'm afraid the great unwashed British public is not ready to be weaned off from its infantile addiction to all things monarchy.
Good on Corbyn though. I'm starting to like the guy.

ruggedtoast

setmefree2 wrote: »

Really?

I'm from a very working class background. I experienced levels of poverty in my childhood most people today couldn't imagine. Nevertheless, my parents were loving, believed in education, encouraged me to work hard and now I earn quite a bit of money. Seems to me that The Tories think that I'm entitled to keep a fair share of that money since I've worked hard for it but Labour want to take most of it off me and give it to people who never worked hard. It's the Labour Party who are trying to put me back in my box.

I'm prepared to pay quite large amounts of tax without moaning but when the government is taking more of my hard earned extra pound than I get to keep then I say enough....anything above 40% is a bridge too far for me. Anyway, high rates of taxes don't produce extra revenue for the government. It's the Laffer Curve init?

If you want to improve equality - you improve access to high quality education and health care - you don't redistribute wealth from those who work hard to those who don't imho.

You might also bear in mind that you arrived in a country that had an insecure social safety net, and limited educational and employment opportunities for working class people, which then made massive inroads into poverty reduction and educational attainment while you were growing up which allowed people like you - presumably, baby boomers - to enjoy an unprecedented level of financial success.

It would also be nice, if on seeing Tories trying to turn the clock back to the 1950s you might reflect on the opportunities you have had and speculate that it would be nice if kids being born now continued to enjoy them, and were prepared to put your hand in your pocket to do so.

As all we hear from the right is "me me me" I won't hold my breath.

wymondham

I don't really know much about Corbyn, but its up to him what he sings as this is a free country. We have the choice of voting for him or not...

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Sapphire wrote: »

It has absolutely nothing to do with his singing ability!:cool:

I did wonder who would comment on that....

I'm sure there are plenty of sound reasons to criticise Corbyn based on his policies. It's just shrill tabloid Diana-death hysteria to care about national anthems.

Rinoa

PMQ's, Corbyn's asking some pertinent questions. Certainly better than Milliband.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

He's a bit waffly and not the greatest orator, but I think I prefer that to the polished slickness of many current politicians. Not sure whether he got much out of Cameron other than giving him a platform to sell the government's position? Also seemed odd to raise tax credits without pointing out that they are in effect a taxpayers' subsidy of low wages. Overall, a fairly dull no score draw.

.string.

Rinoa wrote: »

PMQ's, Corbyn's asking some pertinent questions. Certainly better than Milliband.

It's an odd approach, and has its risks. I wait for the first dodgy question by a ringer.

However it got him through the first PMQs. We now have wait for him to put his own questions rather than hiding behind individual hard luck cases.

He is meant to be a Leader, not a carrier pigeon.

michaels

.string. wrote: »

It's an odd approach, and has its risks. I wait for the first dodgy question by a ringer.

However it got him through the first PMQs. We now have wait for him to put his own questions rather than hiding behind individual hard luck cases.

He is meant to be a Leader, not a carrier pigeon.

I guess with him not trying to be a smart alec with 'point scoring one liners' Cameron would have walked right into a trap had he responded with the normal cheap shots (for example on singing ability) - but by not doing so he was forced to look as if he was following Corbyn's lead by changing the terms of the debate.

.string.

I think the tone of debate in PMQs is mostly set by the nature of the question. An example of that is the Question by the SNP leader, Robinson where he claimed that the "Vow" had not been kept. That question got (rightly) a curt response and a challenge for a list to be given.

I can only see things reverting back to the cut and thrust.

I would imagine that the new niceness will breakdown the first time that Corbyn adds an insult or implied insult to a question. For example as in " Is the Prime Minister aware that his drones are murdering the families of my ISIS friends (*)"

(*) I jest, of course, for effect, but my overall point is serious.

ruggedtoast

Breaking news!

Corbyn's driver has given a BBC Camerman a sound thrashing!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11868234/Jeremy-Corbyns-driver-assaults-BBC-cameraman-in-scuffle-outside-his-Islington-home.html

Any hope the luvvies in Aunty had that they will be spared in a Corbyn government must have gone now.