Corbynomics: A Dystopia

fatbeetle

Free housing, food, transport and access to the internet should be given to British citizens in a massive expansion of the welfare state, according to a report warning the rapid advance of technology will lead to job losses.

Former senior government official Jonathan Portes and academics from University College London make the call for a raft of new “universal basic services” using the same principles as the NHS. They estimate it would cost about £42bn, which could be funded by changes to the tax system.

The recommendations include doubling Britain’s existing social housing stock with funding to build 1.5m new homes, which would be offered for free to those in most need. A food service would provide one third of meals for 2.2m households deemed to experience food insecurity each year, while free bus passes would be made available to everyone, rather than just the over-60s.

The proposals also include access to basic phone services, the internet, and the cost of the BBC licence fee being paid for by the state.

John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, said the recommendations would “help inform Labour’s thinking”.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/11/uk-universal-basic-services-jonathan-portes

The mind boggles; "inform Labour's thinking?!?!?!? Can they not come up with vote buying giveaways themselves?

mrginge

Moby wrote: »

True this is what we're stuck with at present:-

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-second-eu-referendum-brexit-refuses-to-say-how-vote-remain-leave-a7993456.html

She can't think on her feet, once she has to go off the prepared script she is all at sea. The EU negotiators are taking her to the cleaners by simply stalling the negotiations. Sadly it was all so predictable..... How she answered that question must be rather demoralising for Leavers.......and very slowly they are beginning to look deflated. The longer this goes on, the more obvious it becomes that Leavers only know what they don’t want and have no consensus on what they do want.

I agree it’s not good when you can’t get an honest answer out of senior politicians.

So is labour policy to be in or out of the single market moby?

Moby

Labours policy is to keep our options open for as long as possible and that is the sensible approach in a negotiation.

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/iain-dale/theresa-mays-first-interview-since-that-speech-lbc/

For those of you who don't get LBC . Public health warning... its grim!

mrginge

Moby wrote: »

Out but only after a deal is agreed.

So if no deal is agreed it’s stay in, exactly as we are at the moment then?

How does such ambiguity help to ‘protect jobs’?

Still, negotiations should be fairly swift I guess.

Starmer: we would like X,Y and Z
Barnier: No
Starmer: how about X and Y
Barnier: No
Starmer: ok the we will have to stay in instead.

mrginge

Moby wrote: »

Labours policy is to keep our options open for as long as possible and that is the sensible approach in a negotiation.

So labour think it’s sensible to go into a negotiation with no clear objectives on what they want. Great.

You will of course notice that the EU have not kept their options open at all. They have a defined position and are so far sticking to it.

Presumably you will be giving them a good kicking now for their inflexibility in negotiations?

Boredatwrork

Moby wrote: »

Labours policy is to keep our options open for as long as possible and that is the sensible approach in a negotiation.

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/iain-dale/theresa-mays-first-interview-since-that-speech-lbc/

For those of you who don't get LBC . Public health warning... its grim!

I think what some people are forgetting is TM voted to remain, so it puts her in a rather awkward position, personally of course I would like her to give her honest position, but appreciate she see's it as her duty to fulfill what the majority voted for.

Would the population prefer she took the Blair route and ignore millions of people on anti war marches because he thought he knew best?

Malthusian

Boredatwrork wrote: »

I think what some people are forgetting is TM voted to remain, so it puts her in a rather awkward position, personally of course I would like her to give her honest position, but appreciate she see's it as her duty to fulfill what the majority voted for.

She saw it as a chance to boost her pensionable salary by taking the PM job at a time when none of her colleagues wanted it. A chance a non-entity like her would never ever get again. If that meant overseeing Brexit then so be it.

Would the population prefer she took the Blair route and ignore millions of people on anti war marches because he thought he knew best?

Blair won the election after the Iraq War, so May is taking the Blair route - ignoring the noisy protestors and doing what the majority of voters want.

Don't get me wrong, sacrificing our soldiers on the altar of Blair's future US lecture tours was an appalling decision. But the majority of voters at the time did not agree with me. If the war was that unpopular the Tories would have won the 2005 election on a "bring our troops home" ticket.

Moby

mrginge wrote: »

So labour think it’s sensible to go into a negotiation with no clear objectives on what they want. Great.

You will of course notice that the EU have not kept their options open at all. They have a defined position and are so far sticking to it.

Presumably you will be giving them a good kicking now for their inflexibility in negotiations?

Not correct....Labour have a clear objective. It's just that you are not listening or prepared to consider it. Labour wants a jobs first brexit, a brexit that doesn't turn us into an offshore tax haven for the rich and protects employment conditions. Our relationship with the EU to achieve this will need to be as close as possible, (ie as close as we can negotiate), whether this remains staying in the single market as presently constituted is unlikely, because of the four freedoms......... but Labour wants to be pragmatic and wants everything on the table as part of the negotiation. You do not decide your red lines before the negotiation. That's why expecting certainty at this point is not reasonable. The difference with the tories is that their moderates are in a very similar position to Labour while the Rees Moggs, Johnsons, Goves, Patel etc want something very different....a bargain basement, low tax, low regulation based economy to free us up to become a new Hong Kong or Singapore. What is reprehensible here is that May does not herself believe in the cliff edge brexit, neither does Hammond.....they know the damage it will cause to our country! However in order to try and keep themselves in power they will do whatever it takes to square the circle. They are putting party interests above the interests of the country. Imo people know this but concentrate on Corbyn as a distraction. My question is how bad does Mayhem and our position re. this decision have to be before brexiteers develop a bit of humility and admit they are wrong! I've been on pro brexit web sites and seen comments saying....ok we can suffer a recession for 10-15 years with brexit... but who cares it is the right thing to do! There is a religious zealotry about such people; they hate the EU and this trumps everything else. We are not in a good place imo and it needs saying!

ukcarper

Moby wrote: »

Not correct....Labour have a clear objective. It's just that you are not listening or prepared to consider it. Labour wants a jobs first brexit, a brexit that doesn't turn us into an offshore tax haven for the rich and protects employment conditions. Our relationship with the EU to achieve this will need to be close as possible, (ie as close as we can negotiate), whether this remains staying in the single market as presently constituted is unlikely, because of the four freedoms......... but Labour wants to be pragmatic and wants everything on the table as part of the negotiation. You do not decide your red lines before the negotiation. That's why expecting certainty at this point is not reasonable. The difference with the tories is that their moderates are in a very similar position to Labour while the Rees Moggs, Johnsons, Goves, Patel etc want something very different....a bargain basement, low tax, low regulation based economy to free us up to become a new Hong Kong or Singapore. What is reprehensible here is that May does not herself believe in the cliff edge brexit, neither does Hammond.....they know the damage it will cause to our country! However in order to try and keep themselves in power they will do whatever it takes to square the circle. They are putting party interests above the interests of the country. Imo people know this but concentrate on Corbyn as a distraction. My question is how bad does Mahem and our position re. this decision have to be before brexiteers develop a bit of humility and admit they are wrong!

The Tories have a similar aim to Labours, I would say the difference is that Tories who want a hard brexit are vocal about it whereas Labour MPs are keeping quite.

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2016/11/15/john-mcdonnell-backs-brexit-enormous-opportunity-britain

Moby

ukcarper wrote: »

The Tories have a similar aim to Labours, I would say the difference is that Tories who want a hard brexit are vocal about it whereas Labour MPs are keeping quite.

Imo the mainstream of Labour want a 'soft' brexit. a large number of tories do as well but an even bigger number of tories want the pure unfettered brexit I describe above. I don't know many Labour MP's who want the cliff edge version....I reckon there are only about five!