Corbynomics: A Dystopia

ruggedtoast

cells wrote: »

They got to get away from calling it tory austerity

Most families will have budgets and will have to make do with only what they can afford. They have to implement austerity daily. To suggest its not needed is an insults to any family which itself had to cut spending at some point in their life.

I can just imagine a kid saying to his dad why do we need to put up with your austerity. Enough to make an ex coal miner vote Tory

I'm sorry but it isn't. Austerity by definition is a harsh imposition of unusual deprivation.

ruggedtoast

Generali wrote: »

C'mon, you're not an idiot ruggedtoast. A return to nationalised industries is clearly a huge step to the left. Any proposal that it's anything else is just silly.

Unless that's yet another promise that Mr Corbyn has binned.

So the Tories privatising them all in the first place was a huge step to the right? Or does it only count one way?

There is an evidence based rationale for renationalising the railways, for example. There is little evidence to suggest that private companies in the UK are capable of running trains efficiently, punctually, or affordably. In fact I would say they have failed miserably to do anything other than pay out to their shareholders, which is actually their only goal anyway.

For most of the time the railways were run well at a cost that didn't price normal people out of using them, they were in state hands.

We appear now to be paying state subsidiaries of other countries to run our trains privately to a standard and cost their own citizens would not tolerate.

I fail to see what the point of privatised gas and electric is when the wholesale supplier is always the same.

The solution to poorly run government services isn't always privatisation, sometimes it is to demand a better government.

The Tories and Old New Labour have stated quite clearly they consider themselves too incompetent to run things like rail any better than Connex, for example, so we know where they stand. Maybe Labour now saying they actually can run these industries well will appeal to people, maybe not.

I would have thought it would be an issue based around practicality rather than ideology, but the existence of Corbyn does seem to rather anger some people. Why I'm not sure, in your case he is leading a party that is obviously never meant to appeal to you and that you would never vote for anyway.

The Green Party are far more extreme than Labour under Corbyn, for example.

Generali

ruggedtoast wrote: »

So the Tories privatising them all in the first place was a huge step to the right? Or does it only count one way?

The Green Party....

Of course voting in a Government that believed in the privatisation of state owned industries was a step to the right in 1979. I'm not aware that anyone is arguing the contrary. That's not even a good strawman, it's just silly.

Yes the Greens are extremists and that is reflected in the number of seats they have. Mr Corbyn is also an extremist and I suspect will fare badly in an election as a result.

It's worth noting that for the last 40 years, every party that has stood on a platform of nationalisation has failed to get anywhere near power.

antrobus

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I'm sorry but it isn't. Austerity by definition is a harsh imposition of unusual deprivation.

By that defintion, the UK has suffered no austerity at all.

antrobus

cells wrote: »

...Quota for car manufacturing so that by value at least 80% of UK car demand is manufactured here (that doesn't mean we need to make 80% of the cars we buy in the UK it could mean we need to on average export at least 8 cars for 10 imported)....

Even if you wanted to 'protect' the UK car industry that would be (a) a very stupid way of trying to do it, and (b) it wouldn't work anyway, because it would contravene EU law.

Fella

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Is that basically just going to be it from you from now on?

Even by your standards this is stretching your straw man inference. Corbyn is some kind of IRA General, and anyone who supports him is a terrorist.

Is that actually your argument, that you are just going to repeat ad infinitum? Every single time you see a Corbyn discussion?

You really don't have anything else to offer?

Shocking. Almost as bad as someone spending years & years blaming everything on "boomers".

.string.

ruggedtoast wrote:

"Old New Labour"

Might as well join in.

That would make your lot Old Old Labour.

gadgetmind

antrobus wrote: »

Even if you wanted to 'protect' the UK car industry that would be (a) a very stupid way of trying to do it, and (b) it wouldn't work anyway, because it would contravene EU law.

Well, quite. The best way to protect the UK car industry is for us to produce world-class automobiles, ones that people want to own and drive without needing to be forced or coerced.

And given the right environment to let entrepreneurs thrive, we could do it. Take a look at Tesla for an example.

cells

antrobus wrote: »

Even if you wanted to 'protect' the UK car industry that would be (a) a very stupid way of trying to do it, and (b) it wouldn't work anyway, because it would contravene EU law.

I understand it would break free trade ruels but that aside it would work

I would have it that if a manufacturer breached the ratio they would have a £2000 selling fee per car for their cars sold in the UK. The result would be that the UK manufactures by value at least 80% if what it uses.
It could mean that we manufactured 2 million cars for export and imported 2.5 million cars. It could mean that we manufacture 80% domestically and import 20%. Its more flexible than a import tariff

Generali

cells wrote: »

I understand it would break free trade ruels but that aside it would work

I would have it that if a manufacturer breached the ratio they would have a £2000 selling fee per car for their cars sold in the UK. The result would be that the UK manufactures by value at least 80% if what it uses.
It could mean that we manufactured 2 million cars for export and imported 2.5 million cars. It could mean that we manufacture 80% domestically and import 20%. Its more flexible than a import tariff

But all that happens is that everyone else puts in place the subsidy and the world ends up in exactly the same place as previously only with car companies setting one Government off against each other in order to seek rents. In the end car companies become rent seeking organisations rather than car making ones.