Corbynomics: A Dystopia

A_Medium_Size_Jock

ilovehouses wrote: »

It's hard to get behind someone you know couldn't win a general election. I suspect one of the reasons people are getting on-board is because he's starting to look electable.

How much good will that do him at this moment in time; tell us, when is the next general election planned here in the UK?

System

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

How much good will that do him at this moment in time; tell us, when is the next general election planned here in the UK?

I don't recall you pulling anyone up in the same manner when they've said he isn't electable.

Anyway I was answering the question why are people who were previously against Corbyn getting behind him. It's because he's looking electable and his message that labour are the new mainstream is gaining traction.

You could point out he can't win an election if there isn't an election but that's nothing more than a statement from the ministry of the bleeding obvious.

What good does it do him at this moment in time? Well it makes it less likely anyone will try and oust him as leader, he'll be seen as more credible, he'll get listened to more. If you put your mind to it I'm sure you could extend this list.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

ilovehouses wrote: »

I don't recall you pulling anyone up in the same manner when they've said he isn't electable. Which makes it rather a moot point doesn't it?

Anyway I was answering the question why are people who were previously against Corbyn getting behind him. It's because he's looking electable and his message that labour are the new mainstream is gaining traction. As I pointed out, this is to no avail without an opportunity to take advantage of those things.

You could point out he can't win an election if there isn't an election but that's nothing more than a statement from the ministry of the bleeding obvious. Says you who does just that in your very first sentence here.

What good does it do him at this moment in time? Well it makes it less likely anyone will try and oust him as leader, he'll be seen as more credible, he'll get listened to more. If you put your mind to it I'm sure you could extend this list. Ah, like ..... would a 73-year-old really stand as leader in our next GE you mean?

Responses in red above.

System

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

I don't recall you pulling anyone up in the same manner when they've said he isn't electable. Which makes it rather a moot point doesn't it? No it means you display your bias with pride

Anyway I was answering the question why are people who were previously against Corbyn getting behind him. It's because he's looking electable and his message that labour are the new mainstream is gaining traction. As I pointed out, this is to no avail without an opportunity to take advantage of those things. Can't help notice you've avoided my point twice now by making a somewhat tangential point. I assume you agree but can't bear to be seen agreeing that Corbyn, on the face of it, is on his 'uppers'.

You could point out he can't win an election if there isn't an election but that's nothing more than a statement from the ministry of the bleeding obvious. Says you who does just that in your very first sentence here.No I suggested that people are getting behind him because he looks like he could possibly win an election. I make that point in full knowledge that an election isn't planned for the near future.

What good does it do him at this moment in time? Well it makes it less likely anyone will try and oust him as leader, he'll be seen as more credible, he'll get listened to more. If you put your mind to it I'm sure you could extend this list. Ah, like ..... would a 73-year-old really stand as leader in our next GE you mean? Like I said - if you put your mind to it.

Replies in lime.

ukcarper

Tromking wrote: »

There is another dishonesty in British Politics of course, this being the idea that our low taxation economy is not impacting progressively on the quality and scope of our public services. This is a battle of ideas that needs honesty on both sides.

But that's the problem people don't want to hear the truth, if you want good public services you have to pay for them and that means everybody not just a few at the top.

westernpromise

If you look at official data on what the state overspends our money on, and if you look at from whom it takes money, I suggest two things stand out.

One is that there is very little obviously low-hanging fruit of things you can cull to save money. The big ticket items are things like health and education and debt repayment and you can't cut those. Things like foreign aid aren't the easy win either because a remarkable amount of foreign aid is spent in the UK, eg. African countries pay PwC to tell them how to privatise their power industries.

The other is that there's nobody much you can obviously tap up for more money. The top 1% of earners pay 27% of the income tax and the next 9% after that pay 32% of it. You don't get very far down before you get to people who are net takers of tax, i.e. have negative tax added to their pay cheque. That's before considering who uses the services that a handful of us fund for everyone else. A few years ago I read a newspaper story to the effect that on that basis, there were only 25,000 net taxpayers in all of Scotland.

From these two points flows a third, which is that if we want all the stuff we're used to we either need to improve everybody's wages right across the board, so that the economy generates more tax; or we've got to spend a lot less. I'm afraid the only candidate that looks likely to provide the kind of savings required (and even then not all of them) is the NHS. Food is a necessity, it's pretty much wholly privatised, and as a result is high in quality, varied to suit all choices, readily available, and cheap. Health care is a necessity but it's pretty much wholly state-run, and as a result is uneven in quality, you get what you're given, it's rationed by queue and it's cripplingly expensive, which is why nobody in the world copies our system.

I really do hope we are on the verge of a new industrial revolution, because if one's coming, it's in the nick of time. There will be some painful readjustment but the one thing we absolutely have to avoid is giving in to Luddites like the taxi drivers and stifling progress to appease special interest groups.

buglawton

Britains ballot-box ready middle class is probably the biggest single UK tax contributor. Don't forget Council tax, VAT, air tax, fuel duty...

Out of fed-upness with unimaginative Tory policies this middle class might let Corbyn slip in, just until their new tax bills land on doormats. After that he's out, Tories back. We love it, eh?

On the NHS, yup even the Trotskyist French wouldn't copy our model. Like most high quality first world health services, France's allows people to freely grow their service by putting more money into a ring fenced and fully accounted for system. And it hasn't half grown, to be what, 50% higher quality than ours?

Sapphire

michaels wrote: »

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?

The thing is, Corbhyn and his far left cult as usual promise things that are far easier to 'promise' than to actually carry out. Just a few points:

1. On the nationalisation of utilities issue, how would they get past the EU 'rule' that utilities cannot be 'renationalised' once they have gone into private ownership – and companies in countries that are in the EU own much of them.

2. On the issue of rental control, many BTL owners are in their thirties and forties, and even in their twenties (contrary to propaganda, they are certainly not owned exclusively by the hated 'old', very many of whom do not own property). How would the far left cult please such people? While I believe that property should never have been allowed to become a commodity, and that it should have always been regarded as a place to live, now that so many owners are so reliant on such a system for income, it would be incredibly difficult to curb the system without this having a massive effect on the economy.

3. Where is the clarity on the issue of free tuition promised by the cult during the election? Where is an assessment of how this would be paid for?

4. Where is clarity on the issue of enticing wealthy corporations and individuals to remain in the UK? While one may not like them, the fact is that they do bring wealth into the country without which we would be much poorer. If a communist environment is not to their lacking, they'll simply move elsewhere.

5. What is the cult's stance on the defence and security of Britain?

6. What is its stance on the monarchy, especially given Corbhyn's attitude towards the Queen?

It's all very well making enticing promises. However, as far as I can see, whenever they are interviewed, members of this cult deflect discussions on these issues and seem unable to answer the actual questions.

It's also interesting to note that 'moderate' labour figures are being sidelined and are not allowed to express dissent to the cult's view.

The cult appears to be rather like any other cult in history (at the extreme end leading to such oppressive systems as communism in the Soviet Union, national socialism in Germany and the current situation in North Korea). It's the young and gullible who tend to be drafted into such cults in large numbers – and the Internet, not to mention decades of labour-lead indoctrination, appears to be a prime tool for their indoctrination.

Thrugelmir

Sapphire wrote: »

The thing is, Corbhyn and his far left cult as usual promise things that are far easier to 'promise' than to actually carry out. Just a few points:

1. On the nationalisation of utilities issue, how would they get past the EU 'rule' that utilities cannot be 'renationalised' once they have gone into private ownership – and companies in countries that are in the EU own much of them.

2. On the issue of rental control, many BTL owners are in their thirties and forties, and even in their twenties (contrary to propaganda, they are certainly not owned exclusively by the hated 'old', very many of whom do not own property). How would the far left cult please such people? While I believe that property should never have been allowed to become a commodity, and that it should have always been regarded as a place to live, now that so many owners are so reliant on such a system for income, it would be incredibly difficult to curb the system without this having a massive effect on the economy.

3. Where is the clarity on the issue of free tuition promised by the cult during the election? Where is an assessment of how this would be paid for?

4. Where is clarity on the issue of enticing wealthy corporations and individuals to remain in the UK? While one may not like them, the fact is that they do bring wealth into the country without which we would be much poorer. If a communist environment is not to their lacking, they'll simply move elsewhere.

5. What is the cult's stance on the defence and security of Britain?

6. What is its stance on the monarchy, especially given Corbhyn's attitude towards the Queen?

It's all very well making enticing promises. However, as far as I can see, whenever they are interviewed, members of this cult deflect discussions on these issues and seem unable to answer the actual questions.

It's also interesting to note that 'moderate' labour figures are being sidelined and are not allowed to express dissent to the cult's view.

The cult appears to be rather like any other cult in history (at the extreme end leading to such oppressive systems as communism in the Soviet Union, national socialism in Germany and the current situation in North Korea). It's the young and gullible who tend to be drafted into such cults in large numbers – and the Internet, not to mention decades of labour-lead indoctrination, appears to be a prime tool for their indoctrination.

Why do think Corbyn is at heart anti Europe? Perhaps it's something to do with implementing his ideas. Without the constaints of the EU or the ECJ to restrain him. He'll get a free run.

Sapphire

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Why do think Corbyn is at heart anti Europe? Perhaps it's something to do with implementing his ideas. Without the constaints of the EU or the ECJ to restrain him. He'll get a free run.

Except that he yesterday reversed his viewpoint on the subject and stated that Britain should remain in the single market – which would mean that it would need to comply with all the 'rules' created by the EU commissars. He also omitted to say how buying back such utilities, even if it were possible, would be funded.

I'd add another point on which there is no clarity from Corbhyn or his cult (there are others, of course):

The issue of immigration from both continental Europe and outside Europe. Many 'traditional' labour voters are against further immigration altogether, let alone 'controlled' immigration. So he has skirted this issue (judging from his previous comments, it is quite clear what he would be in favour of, but he won't actually voice his opinion on the subject for fear of losing popularity). :cool: