Corbynomics: A Dystopia

Moby

Malthusian wrote: »

What should we tell them instead? That life is crap and they'll be at the mercy of people more powerful than them forever?

Like I've already said politics can change culture. Preserving privilege does not sit well with having a social conscience!

Cakeguts

My father had seen poverty in the UK. He described coal falling off the back of a coal delivery wagon and children in rags and no shoes running out to pick it up. How many children do you know in the UK who don't have shoes and live in rags?

If not then something has gone wrong with what is described now as poverty. Anyone who has a colour television is not poor. Anyone who has a car is not poor. Poor people don't have any housing and very little that they can call their own. There are very few children living in poverty in the UK now. If they aren't very well off that is the choice of their parents because there is enough money for all children to have a good life provided by the benefits system. You cannot make people spend money wisely. You cannot stop parents from buying branded clothing when they can't afford it and you cannot stop parents who can't say "no" to their children from spending money on things that they don't need.

GreatApe

Cakeguts wrote: »

My father had seen poverty in the UK. He described coal falling off the back of a coal delivery wagon and children in rags and no shoes running out to pick it up. How many children do you know in the UK who don't have shoes and live in rags?

If not then something has gone wrong with what is described now as poverty. Anyone who has a colour television is not poor. Anyone who has a car is not poor. Poor people don't have any housing and very little that they can call their own. There are very few children living in poverty in the UK now. If they aren't very well off that is the choice of their parents because there is enough money for all children to have a good life provided by the benefits system. You cannot make people spend money wisely. You cannot stop parents from buying branded clothing when they can't afford it and you cannot stop parents who can't say "no" to their children from spending money on things that they don't need.

Definitely true

I know a number of decent people who have lived absolutely good lives and brought up good children and they did this mostly via benefits. In one instance the woman also had to struggle with heath problems too yet still managed to keep a clean tidy well organised household with bright and hard working kids who managed to get professional jobs.

Even people on benefits in the UK are not poor if they spend it reasonably.

What creates broken kids are broken families.
Corbyn has no solution he probably doesn't even care he is having a ball of a time going to concerts convincing everyone he won the election he lost.

GreatApe

Moby wrote: »

You got the first bit partly right....parents do play a big part in how children turn out; don't underestimate society though either. That's why the state intervenes where it can to support families...Sure Start was decimated by the tories. ESA was taken away. Thatcher was a milk snatcher and the present lot are doing what they can to destroy families through their welfare policies and student debt. Social services and community services have been decimated by austerity and the NHS is on it's knees. It's not that I'm 'stupid' imo...it's that many people are too stupid to realise when they are being shafted!Tories blab on about culture being the defining social energy. They fear the fact that politics can change culture though. Women got the vote because they challenged the prevailing culture of the time...not because of it!

The Tories should get rid of higher education loans altogether and give 18 year olds £30k welcome to adulthood gift that the kids can use to buy an education or buy a house or keep in a pension pot.

Something like that would help push up the disadvantaged quite a lot

Two youngsters can couple up use their £60k combined to buy a £120k house and then their housing cost would only be about £100 interest per month. Even on min wage a couple could then live a decent life (and the majority earn more than min wage) and could even clear their remaining mortgage in less than ten years.

Moby

Cakeguts wrote: »

My father had seen poverty in the UK. He described coal falling off the back of a coal delivery wagon and children in rags and no shoes running out to pick it up. How many children do you know in the UK who don't have shoes and live in rags?

If not then something has gone wrong with what is described now as poverty. Anyone who has a colour television is not poor. Anyone who has a car is not poor. Poor people don't have any housing and very little that they can call their own. There are very few children living in poverty in the UK now. If they aren't very well off that is the choice of their parents because there is enough money for all children to have a good life provided by the benefits system. You cannot make people spend money wisely. You cannot stop parents from buying branded clothing when they can't afford it and you cannot stop parents who can't say "no" to their children from spending money on things that they don't need.

Did you read what I actually said? You are choosing to ignore all the social issues I described that influence outcomes and just concentrate on parents that buy branded clothing. Of course poverty now isn't like the 1930's. I should bloody hope not! There is a difference between absolute and relative definitions and surely what's also relevant is the direction of travel?

buglawton

GreatApe wrote: »

The Tories should get rid of higher education loans altogether and give 18 year olds £30k welcome to adulthood gift that the kids can use to buy an education or buy a house or keep in a pension pot.

Something like that would help push up the disadvantaged quite a lot

Two youngsters can couple up use their £60k combined to buy a £120k house and then their housing cost would only be about £100 interest per month. Even on min wage a couple could then live a decent life (and the majority earn more than min wage) and could even clear their remaining mortgage in less than ten years.

Without a million new home per year being built, all that would do is push up demand and stoke massive house price inflation at the starter home end. A transfer of money from the taxpayer to existing homeowners. Homes would remain as physically hard to buy as they are now, that's how supply and demand works when there's no supply.

GreatApe

While it may increase the demand from FTBs it will decrease demand from landlords as a would have been tenant is instead an owner.

The total demand for housing rental+owned is not changed so the price won't move much.

economic

Moby wrote: »

You got the first bit partly right....parents do play a big part in how children turn out; don't underestimate society though either. That's why the state intervenes where it can to support families...Sure Start was decimated by the tories. ESA was taken away. Thatcher was a milk snatcher and the present lot are doing what they can to destroy families through their welfare policies and student debt. Social services and community services have been decimated by austerity and the NHS is on it's knees. It's not that I'm 'stupid' imo...it's that many people are too stupid to realise when they are being shafted!Tories blab on about culture being the defining social energy. They fear the fact that politics can change culture though. Women got the vote because they challenged the prevailing culture of the time...not because of it!

no - the state intervenes usually to get more votes in the next election round. thats how it always has been and will be.

culture and society are determined by people - they are and should be. government needs to be small and only have power over certain things that the private sector cant/wont (eg legal system).

IMO in the uk the main issues are:
- high income taxation
- over regulation that inhibits small business from growing
- inheritance tax (it should be scrapped completely)
- higher education is a bubble and should be replaced by apprenticeships for by far the majority of courses

otherwise apart from the above i think in general this economy is well run and society is fine. any issues with poverty/drugs/violence etc and due to the person/family (due to upbringing usually) and NOT society or the economy. this can be helped by paying attention to mental well being. so probably another area the uk should work on his mental therapy/help.

setmefree2

Corbyn’s attempt to disrupt the EU talks is a self-interested strategy – but could it backfire?

Corbyn doesn’t give a damn what impact his EU pronouncements might have on the national interest. What appears to lie behind this particular calculation is the belief that appealing to those voters who hope to stop Brexit altogether is the route to electoral victory.

At the GE, Labour managed to retain more Leave voters – and win back more former UKIPers – than expected. Consider this week through that filter, then, while remembering that Leave voters as well as Remainers watch TV and read the newspapers. Corbyn travelled to Brussels, apparently to disrupt the Prime Minister’s efforts in the Brexit negotiations. His message is that he would give Brussels as much power and money as it might want, regardless of the wisdom of doing so.

That might play well with some of his intended audience – those who are still completely opposed to leaving the EU – whom he believes he needs to win the next election. But it will simultaneously play badly with another chunk of his vote – those who backed him assuming him to support leaving.

It'll be interesting to watch the polls.

Thrugelmir

setmefree2 wrote: »

His message is that he would give Brussels as much power and money as it might want, regardless of the wisdom of doing so.

Selling that message to the electorate may prove far more difficult.