Corbynomics: A Dystopia

ukcarper

Crashy_Time wrote: »

So is a fair chunk of the population nowadays, and he did close the gap big time with the Tories last time. Just accept that the country is going to go for this guy is my advice.

Do you think everybody up there is Scotland with you are going to start voting Labour again because that's the only way he will get a majority.

Crashy_Time

ukcarper wrote: »

Do you think everybody up there is Scotland with you are going to start voting Labour again because that's the only way he will get a majority.

You sound a bit panicked, did "Use it or lose it" strike a chord? :rotfl:

ukcarper

Crashy_Time wrote: »

You sound a bit panicked, did "Use it or lose it" strike a chord? :rotfl:

What are you on about.

Fella

Crashy_Time wrote: »

So is a fair chunk of the population nowadays, and he did close the gap big time with the Tories last time. Just accept that the country is going to go for this guy is my advice.

Thanks, but so far there's zero evidence of that. He lost the election with the exact same amount of the vote (or less) as every other left-wing Labour leader loses it. And that was against the worst Tory campaign ever. And with the benefit of who knows how many illegal votes from all those wide-eyed students who voted twice. He won't have those benefits again.

As I said, footage of his adoring followers applauding him means nothing. If he had any actual ability he'd have the guts to face hostile crowds.

buglawton

Malthusian wrote: »

I'm not sure it's as simple as the UK electing a Corbynist government and deciding we'd like to go from being net payers to net claimants. The EU is having enough kittens as it is at the prospect of the UK going from net payers to net zero and the hole that leaves in the "project".

If the UK tried to become a client, Corbyn's disregard of state aid rules would be more than enough pretext for the EU to deny any attempts by the UK to claim subsidies and grants.

Well, at least under Corbyn we'd be on track to receive 3rd world/developing country aid, like Turkey did from the EU.

Tromking

buglawton wrote: »

....But the new generation of electorate does need to experience labour and the unions ruling the roost so they can party like it's 1979. Then they can grow up to be the old fogeys that will evermore afterwards vote Tory.

There may be something in that, but there is a growing feeling abroad in the country that the 40 year Thatcherite consensus needs to end. Tales of the IMF, the winter of discontent and the rest may have haunted the baby boomer generation not so the new generation of voters.
I found his speech very interesting in that it put forward an alternative to the miserablist agenda of the Tories. State intervention can be a huge force for good, and in an environment where people are weary of stagnating wages and worsening public services, a Corbyn agenda is an appealing prospect.
It'll be interesting to see how the Tories respond.

mrginge

Tromking wrote: »

I found his speech very interesting in that it put forward an alternative to the miserablist agenda of the Tories. State intervention can be a huge force for good, and in an environment where people are weary of stagnating wages and worsening public services, a Corbyn agenda is an appealing prospect.
It'll be interesting to see how the Tories respond.

The miserabilist Tory agenda is based on a principle view that we should be a low taxation economy and spend those low taxes efficiently and with an appropriate level of borrowing.

We can all argue about the detail of whether that spending is done wisely or if the level of borrowing is appropriate.

The labour alternative though appears to be a high public spending economy, but still with a low taxation base.
Now I would quite happily have loads more money pumped into the nhs, education, transport etc... But as always, where is that money coming from. Tweaking CT or higher rate IT is not scratching the surface of labour’s ‘alternative model’.

The reality is that if you want Scandinavian quality public services you have to have Scandinavian level taxation. To pretend otherwise is downright dishonest.

ukcarper

Tromking wrote: »

There may be something in that, but there is a growing feeling abroad in the country that the 40 year Thatcherite consensus needs to end. Tales of the IMF, the winter of discontent and the rest may have haunted the baby boomer generation not so the new generation of voters.
I found his speech very interesting in that it put forward an alternative to the miserablist agenda of the Tories. State intervention can be a huge force for good, and in an environment where people are weary of stagnating wages and worsening public services, a Corbyn agenda is an appealing prospect.
It'll be interesting to see how the Tories respond.

You could be right and plenty of people are feeling the effects of austerity, but the alternative needs to be realistic, not a big give and making unrealistic promises that can not be funded.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

mrginge wrote: »

The miserabilist Tory agenda is based on a principle view that we should be a low taxation economy and spend those low taxes efficiently and with an appropriate level of borrowing.

We can all argue about the detail of whether that spending is done wisely or if the level of borrowing is appropriate.

The labour alternative though appears to be a high public spending economy, but still with a low taxation base.
Now I would quite happily have loads more money pumped into the nhs, education, transport etc... But as always, where is that money coming from. Tweaking CT or higher rate IT is not scratching the surface of labour’s ‘alternative model’.

The reality is that if you want Scandinavian quality public services you have to have Scandinavian level taxation. To pretend otherwise is downright dishonest.

I will vote for any politician that summarises Britain's choices as succinctly and honestly as this.

michaels

A question for Tromking and Moby

Up until the election you generally had little time for Corbyn and his policies that were well to the left of what has ever been electorally successful in the UK. Now you seem fully onboard with the momentum project.

Is this because whilst you liked the policies all along you thought that they were electorally naive or have you change your minds about what make sense economically?