Corbynomics: A Dystopia

Thrugelmir

setmefree2 wrote: »

How can anyone vote for a party that is clearly saying they'll run a deficit even in the good times?

Madness.

One way of steering the news agenda away from Tom Watson.

antrobus

setmefree2 wrote: »

How can anyone vote for a party that is clearly saying they'll run a deficit even in the good times?

Madness.

How can anyone vote for a party that changes its mind about whether or not to run a deficit every month or so?

Double madness.:)

Generali

As far as I can see the Labour Party has had 5 policies on the deficit so far in 2015:

- Milliband going to the election with less austerity than the Tories
- Harriet Harman would have "cut spending outside protected departments and reduced the welfare bill"
- Cut the deficit by "removing the £93bn tax subsidy to businesses" (Corbyn's policy he took to the leadership election)
- Vote for the chancellor's fiscal charter
- Vote against the chancellor's fiscal charter

I suppose that they have something for everyone which could be handy at the next election.

Voter: So what is your position on the deficit?
Canvasser: Whatever you want it to be really. We've got as many positions as the Karma Sutra.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5os4NFeKFFs

wotsthat

5 years out from a GE it would have been perfectly respectable for Labour, especially without a leader, to say their policy was to hold the government to account, express a determination to be an effective opposition and commit to presenting detailed plans for consideration by the electorate in advance of future elections.

I don't know where they get their advice from but it's idiotic being caught in a policy U turn when they didn't need a policy in the first place.

Generali

wotsthat wrote: »

5 years out from a GE it would have been perfectly respectable for Labour, especially without a leader, to say their policy was to hold the government to account, express a determination to be an effective opposition and commit to presenting detailed plans for consideration by the electorate in advance of future elections.

I don't know where they get their advice from but it's idiotic being caught in a policy U turn when they didn't need a policy in the first place.

Less a u-turn, more Alpe d'Huez:

Thrugelmir

wotsthat wrote: »

I don't know where they get their advice from but it's idiotic being caught in a policy U turn when they didn't need a policy in the first place.

Without clearly stated policies who is going to trust them to run an economy. The hole that Labour appears to be digging on the topic is simply getting bigger and bigger. Anti everything isn't an option. As treats the electorate as being stupid. Not a wise move.

Southend1

antrobus wrote: »

You asked the question "where do the corporate profits and sky high bonuses for directors come from?". I answered it. Have you never heard of Apple? Are you deliberately being stupid in a bid to attract a sympathy vote?:)

Apple as far as I am aware makes huge profits mainly by subcontracting its manufacturing to firms such as Foxconn who force their employees to work excessive hours without adequate rest and to live in cramped and substandard accommodation. To the point where some of them have committed suicide as a result.

The proportion of the sale price of an apple product that is paid in wages to the people who made it must be miniscule. How can you believe that those people don't deserve a bigger share of the revenue raised?

Southend1

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Without clearly stated policies who is going to trust them to run an economy. The hole that Labour appears to be digging on the topic is simply getting bigger and bigger. Anti everything isn't an option. As treats the electorate as being stupid. Not a wise move.

I don't get why some people think labour should have clearly stated policies on every issue at this stage in the electoral cycle. They have just elected a new leader and the next general election is years out. Surely now is the time for listening to party members and engaging in discussion and debate within the party so that policies are in place in plenty of time for the next election?

Southend1

gadgetmind wrote: »

If it isn't a bad thing, then why do unions fight it at nearly every turn?

Mechanisation leading to redundancies in any given firm or industry will naturally upset those who are being made redundant. The redundant workers are the union and therefore the policy of the Union will reflect the will of the members.

Just because mechanisation is often a good thing for society as a whole doesn't mean that the redundancies caused aren't a personal tragedy for the individuals who suffer as a result.

I think if governments and firms worked with the unions more effectively to arrange retraining, redeployment, better redundancy terms etc then on the whole the unions wouldn't fight so hard to protect jobs in those circumstances.

Thrugelmir

Southend1 wrote: »

I don't get why some people think labour should have clearly stated policies on every issue at this stage in the electoral cycle.

Labour hasn't had a sound strategic policy for years. That's what I'm referring too. Anti austerity, taxing the rich, taxing Corporations, borrowing more are all policies. Trouble is there's no cohesion just a jumbled up mess. As the "policies" don't even stand up to scrutiny.