Corbynomics: A Dystopia

Cakeguts

ukcarper wrote: »

I think things do need rebalanced but I don't think Corbyn and McDonnell are the people to do it. Making unfulfillable promises is not the way forward, if we want better public services etc everybody will need to pay not just a select few.

Corbyn is too old and too rich to have anything at all in common with most of the people he thinks he represents. The Labour party need a new leader.

cogito

Tromking wrote: »

Clement Atlee?

Well maybe. The report by Beveridge (a liberal) was commissioned by Ernest Brown (a conservative) and was accepted by the National Government in 1944. Both Labour and the Conservatives committed to implement it in their manifestos for the 1945 election so if the Conservatives had won the election, they would be able to claim credit for the welfare state.

Moby

cogito wrote: »

Are you seriously comparing Corbyn with Roosevelt? And why pick on Roosevelt? Why not include Stalin, Mao and others whose governments directed things and made big changes? The socialist dream has hardly been a solution for peoples' problems in those countries and others that have tried it.

Come on Cogito Corbyn is hardly Stalin or Chairman Mao. I'm arguing for capitalism which is regulated and controlled. Capitalism was broke after the Wall Street Crash. Millions were suffering in the US. Roosevelts new deal was state intervention on a huge scale to fix things. Even May acknowledges things have to change. Why do people have to go to the extremes all the time. Atlee wasn't a Stalinist but he brought in the welfare state and took us forward after the war. Wilson talked about the white heat of technology....he wasn't a Maoist either and neither is Jeremy Corbyn except in your fantasies.

Tromking

cogito wrote: »

Well maybe. The report by Beveridge (a liberal) was commissioned by Ernest Brown (a conservative) and was accepted by the National Government in 1944. Both Labour and the Conservatives committed to implement it in their manifestos for the 1945 election so if the Conservatives had won the election, they would be able to claim credit for the welfare state.

So we had a interventionist consensus in post war Britain perhaps?
I'm beginning to sense a drift away from the political dogma that has dominated since circa 1979. Just as Labour politicians in the 70's protecting the vested interests of the Unions became untenable to the electorate, then Tories making excuses for their 'friends' is becoming equally unpopular.
Witness perhaps the adoption of Miliband's energy cap by the Tories as the beginning of a reset in British politics.

LHW99

Wilson's 'White Heat of Technology'

Such as TSR2? We had to wait until Concorde for supersonic flight.
Such as cancelling Blue Streak? I think we have had a couple of British astronauts recently

ukcarper

Cakeguts wrote: »

Corbyn is too old and too rich to have anything at all in common with most of the people he thinks he represents. The Labour party need a new leader.

I think Corbyns aims are OK but unrealistic, also I think it is probably to late for Labour to change thanks to momentum.

antrobus

Moby wrote: »

Don't be so patronising. I'm telling you that speculation and investing is not the utopia you think it is. Just because you are sold on the capitalist dream doesn't make it the solution for our problems you think it is. Big changes happen when Govmts direct things. The speculators gave us the 1929 crash....Roosevelt gave us the new deal!

Ah, the myth of the New Deal.:)

Per capita GDP was lower in 1939 than in 1929 ($847 vs. $857), as were personal consumption expenditures ($67.6 billion vs. $78.9 billion), according to Census Bureau data. Net private investment was minus $3.1 billion from 1930–40.

https://mises.org/library/new-deal-debunked-again

The New Deal didn't really work.

Tromking

antrobus wrote: »

Ah, the myth of the New Deal.:)

Per capita GDP was lower in 1939 than in 1929 ($847 vs. $857), as were personal consumption expenditures ($67.6 billion vs. $78.9 billion), according to Census Bureau data. Net private investment was minus $3.1 billion from 1930–40.

https://mises.org/library/new-deal-debunked-again

The New Deal didn't really work.

Has the benefits of the post-war house and hospital building splurge by a near bankrupt Britain been debunked in a similar fashion.

Fella

Tromking wrote: »

Why you feel the need to use examples of communist mass murdering despots as a comparator to a possible future Corbyn administration I don't know.

Um, maybe because Corbyn's closest allies, who would hold the highest positions in a Corbyn Govt, say Mao did "more good than harm".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB4o5n2EGyA

(Awaits obligatory outrage saying that it's racist to point out any of the very many pig-ignorant things Dianne Abbott says).

antrobus

cogito wrote: »

Well maybe. The report by Beveridge (a liberal) was commissioned by Ernest Brown (a conservative) and was accepted by the National Government in 1944. Both Labour and the Conservatives committed to implement it in their manifestos for the 1945 election so if the Conservatives had won the election, they would be able to claim credit for the welfare state.

Certainly the creation of the NHS was a manifesto commitment made by the Cons, Lab, and Libs. The basic principles, comprehensive, free at the point of delivery etc, had been set out in the 1944 White Paper issued by a Conservative health minister. The main difference was that the Conservatives wanted the NHS to be run by local authorities, whilst Labour decided to create one big central NHS, and Bevan basically nationalised everything he could.

I'm not sure about commitments to the rest of Beveridge. I believe that Beveridge recommended a funded state pension. That never happened.