Jeremy Corbyn Vol. 2
Discussion
Tuna said:
So, if I spend wildly beyond my means, put everything on credit for my kids to pick up later, mortgage myself to the hilt - when the bank takes my credit cards off me for irresponsible spending, that's austerity is it?
Under Brown's desperate plans to bribe the electorate with cheap credit and uncapped spending (oh, and an attempted deal with the DUP), he massively increased police numbers. Since then, police numbers have been brought back down to levels that are about the same as they were in the middle of Blair's tenure.
The same Labour government undertook disastrous PFI arrangements that hamstrung hospitals across the country. It's ridiculous in the extreme to suggest that spending more money on the NHS in ways that actually reach the patients rather than lucrative private partnerships constitutes 'austerity'.
And whilst we're at it, You really have no idea of what austerity actually is. Go spend some time in Greece and then tell us that the UK is having a hard time.
The fact is we shouldn't be engaging in a race to the bottom. We saw how bad a financial shock can be if a government hasn't prepared for it, so it beggars belief that within a decade the same party is proposing that we drop any attempt at economic planning and just throw money at the people they think are most likely to vote for them.
PFI was a fUnder Brown's desperate plans to bribe the electorate with cheap credit and uncapped spending (oh, and an attempted deal with the DUP), he massively increased police numbers. Since then, police numbers have been brought back down to levels that are about the same as they were in the middle of Blair's tenure.
The same Labour government undertook disastrous PFI arrangements that hamstrung hospitals across the country. It's ridiculous in the extreme to suggest that spending more money on the NHS in ways that actually reach the patients rather than lucrative private partnerships constitutes 'austerity'.
And whilst we're at it, You really have no idea of what austerity actually is. Go spend some time in Greece and then tell us that the UK is having a hard time.
The fact is we shouldn't be engaging in a race to the bottom. We saw how bad a financial shock can be if a government hasn't prepared for it, so it beggars belief that within a decade the same party is proposing that we drop any attempt at economic planning and just throw money at the people they think are most likely to vote for them.
king disaster and one of the worst part of New Labour's economic policies.I wouldn't confuse Labour's current policy of increasing the tax take to fund extra spending with overspending. Tax cuts can be reversed to fund these services if we want to.
sidicks said:
Fair play, that is correct, I apologise. But that doesn't tie up with your comments on austerity, and certainly doesn't take into account the £150bn deficit that was inherited.
The point of course is that spending as a % of GDP is still higher than every year (apart from 2008) under the Labour government.
1. Do you class the NHS spending under Labour between 1997 and 2009 as being 'austerity'?
2. What is the appropriate NHS spending amount as a percent of GDP to not be considered as 'austerity'?
3. What public spending would you reduce to fund the necessary (in your opinion) higher spending on the NHS?
Blimey, wasn't expecting that. Fair play.The point of course is that spending as a % of GDP is still higher than every year (apart from 2008) under the Labour government.
1. Do you class the NHS spending under Labour between 1997 and 2009 as being 'austerity'?
2. What is the appropriate NHS spending amount as a percent of GDP to not be considered as 'austerity'?
3. What public spending would you reduce to fund the necessary (in your opinion) higher spending on the NHS?
1) Nope, but the trajectory in those years was upwards.
2) Somewhere nearer to 10% like other countries our size Japan, Germany, France etc. If we want a quality service we have to pay for it.
3) I'd reverse certain tax cuts before considering cutting services.
Tuna said:
So, if I spend wildly beyond my means, put everything on credit for my kids to pick up later, mortgage myself to the hilt - when the bank takes my credit cards off me for irresponsible spending, that's austerity is it?
Under Brown's desperate plans to bribe the electorate with cheap credit and uncapped spending (oh, and an attempted deal with the DUP), he massively increased police numbers. Since then, police numbers have been brought back down to levels that are about the same as they were in the middle of Blair's tenure.
The same Labour government undertook disastrous PFI arrangements that hamstrung hospitals across the country. It's ridiculous in the extreme to suggest that spending more money on the NHS in ways that actually reach the patients rather than lucrative private partnerships constitutes 'austerity'.
And whilst we're at it, You really have no idea of what austerity actually is. Go spend some time in Greece and then tell us that the UK is having a hard time.
The fact is we shouldn't be engaging in a race to the bottom. We saw how bad a financial shock can be if a government hasn't prepared for it, so it beggars belief that within a decade the same party is proposing that we drop any attempt at economic planning and just throw money at the people they think are most likely to vote for them.
I think your last paragraph would feel more at home in the DUP thread.Under Brown's desperate plans to bribe the electorate with cheap credit and uncapped spending (oh, and an attempted deal with the DUP), he massively increased police numbers. Since then, police numbers have been brought back down to levels that are about the same as they were in the middle of Blair's tenure.
The same Labour government undertook disastrous PFI arrangements that hamstrung hospitals across the country. It's ridiculous in the extreme to suggest that spending more money on the NHS in ways that actually reach the patients rather than lucrative private partnerships constitutes 'austerity'.
And whilst we're at it, You really have no idea of what austerity actually is. Go spend some time in Greece and then tell us that the UK is having a hard time.
The fact is we shouldn't be engaging in a race to the bottom. We saw how bad a financial shock can be if a government hasn't prepared for it, so it beggars belief that within a decade the same party is proposing that we drop any attempt at economic planning and just throw money at the people they think are most likely to vote for them.
sidicks said:
Crackie said:
Donkey, what do you think Jeremy Corbyn and the labour shadow cabinet will be able to achieve if they were in office. Presumably an end to austerity will be a priority and thus fewer cuts in public services and more public sector jobs retained ?? Any thoughts ??
What will happen to our deficit and debt in that scenario?!Donkey Of The Damned said:
Blimey, wasn't expecting that. Fair play.
1) Nope, but the trajectory in those years was upwards.
So it wasn't 'austerity' when Labour was in power, but the Tories spending more in nominal terms, more in real terms and more as a % of GDP is somehow now considered to be 'austerity'?1) Nope, but the trajectory in those years was upwards.
Or are you saying the level of spending (as a % of GDP) is irrelevant as long as it's more than last year so that the trend is upwards?!
Donkey of the Damned said:
2) Somewhere nearer to 10% like other countries our size Japan, Germany, France etc. If we want a quality service we have to pay for it.
So you admit that Labour massively underspent on the NHS (and must therefore be the cause of the current 'crisis', given that the Tories are spending ammuch higher % of GDP?If Labour underspent so badly on the NHS (according to you) and still ran out of money and managed to double debt and create a £150bn deficit in 2009/2010, where do you think the money would come from to fund what you believe is necessary?
Donkey of the Damned said:
3) I'd reverse certain tax cuts before considering cutting services.
Isn't the tax take rising under this government's fiscal policies?Edited by sidicks on Monday 26th June 23:22
Donkey Of The Damned said:
You must have missed the fact that despite these cuts, the national debt is still rising. Not a great record by those in power. I'd be ashamed to publicly admit I voted for them tbh.
Another new poster who doesn't understand the difference between deficit and debt. It's those Dianne Abbot classes isn't it? 
dimots said:
sidicks said:
We need to focus on equality of opportunity (not equality of outcome) and certainly not drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator.
The robot in me wants to agree with you, but much as pure socialism doesn't work with fallible humans, nor does pure market economics. There are too many casualties. I believe we need to temper this with some form of intervention. Herein lies the root of our disagreement.The UK is not perfect, nowhere is, but the UK is doing a very good job of it for the majority of people. Pissing money up the wall on political ideologies that have been proven to make more peoples lives worse is not the answer, quite frankly its a terrifying thought the UK populace could be so easily led to disaster by the likes of Corbyn.
Donkey Of The Damned said:
I wouldn't confuse Labour's current policy of increasing the tax take to fund extra spending with overspending. Tax cuts can be reversed to fund these services if we want to.
The tax take wont increase under Corbyn, his policies will drive business away from the UK shrinking the tax take whilst increasing the debt burden, which means less money to spend on services. It's a double whammy and would make the least able to cope significantly worse off.jsf said:
Donkey Of The Damned said:
I wouldn't confuse Labour's current policy of increasing the tax take to fund extra spending with overspending. Tax cuts can be reversed to fund these services if we want to.
The tax take wont increase under Corbyn, his policies will drive business away from the UK shrinking the tax take whilst increasing the debt burden, which means less money to spend on services. It's a double whammy and would make the least able to cope significantly worse off.
Donkey Of The Damned said:
Back in reality, NHS spending as a %'age of GDP has been falling since the Tories took power. We spend less per gdp than other developed nations our size.
So let's get this right, can we. As a parallel, you have a rise and now are paid 25% more than you were (GDP is up) so you suddenly need to spend 25% more on everything you buy? No, you pay what is necessary and not a penny more, plus you make sure that what you do buy is good value for money.dimots said:
loafer123 said:
Get real, Dimots.
You couldn't give a monkey's backside whether the Tories have an image problem.
Why do you say that? I want British politics to work for the good of the population as a whole...and the more competent politicians are in position the better, regardless of allegiance.You couldn't give a monkey's backside whether the Tories have an image problem.
Not sure if Dimots cares about Tory image, but I am going to agree with his answer.
jsf said:
Donkey Of The Damned said:
You must have missed the fact that despite these cuts, the national debt is still rising. Not a great record by those in power. I'd be ashamed to publicly admit I voted for them tbh.
Another The mods are a lot more lax about this sort of thing than they were a few years ago luckily for this chap.
dimots said:
sidicks said:
We need to focus on equality of opportunity (not equality of outcome) and certainly not drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator.
The robot in me wants to agree with you, but much as pure socialism doesn't work with fallible humans, nor does pure market economics. There are too many casualties. I believe we need to temper this with some form of intervention. Herein lies the root of our disagreement.However, there is intervention in the markets, the big question is, as always, how much intervention and of what sort, should it be?
That is the area for discussion in my estimation.
Donkey Of The Damned said:
3) I'd reverse certain tax cuts before considering cutting services.
Which ones though?Corbyn is indicating he will increase corporation tax - yet historical data shows this is unlikely to increase the tax take, and could even reduce it.
In fact - if you trend the data on that chart above, a reduction in CT could actually result in an increase in the CT tax take - and may bring other benefits like increased investment, increased employment etc.
Of course - giving the 'nasty profit making corporations' a tax cut won't go down well with the frothing lefties and it would be political suicide if Corbyn did what was best for the country - rather than pursuing policies that are there to do nothing but placate the frothers.
Just as the image posted a few posts above indicates - frothers just want 'rich people' to be taxed more - even if there is no financial benefit to the country. Apparently it's the 'moral thing to do'........or something.......
Donkey Of The Damned said:
Capping public sector workers' pay below that of inflation is austerity. Closing hospitals is austerity. Reducing police officer numbers is austerity. Reducing NHS spending per % of GDP is austerity. HTH
Increasing taxes also comes under the definition of austerity - so your suggestions about raising taxes aren't actually eliminating austerity at all, they are just shifting the focus of it.Goaty Bill 2 said:
dimots said:
sidicks said:
We need to focus on equality of opportunity (not equality of outcome) and certainly not drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator.
The robot in me wants to agree with you, but much as pure socialism doesn't work with fallible humans, nor does pure market economics. There are too many casualties. I believe we need to temper this with some form of intervention. Herein lies the root of our disagreement.However, there is intervention in the markets, the big question is, as always, how much intervention and of what sort, should it be?
That is the area for discussion in my estimation.
The casualties of free market economics face a bankruptcy court, those of socialism face a firing squad. I'll take my chances with free markets thanks very much.
Dr Jekyll said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
dimots said:
sidicks said:
We need to focus on equality of opportunity (not equality of outcome) and certainly not drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator.
The robot in me wants to agree with you, but much as pure socialism doesn't work with fallible humans, nor does pure market economics. There are too many casualties. I believe we need to temper this with some form of intervention. Herein lies the root of our disagreement.However, there is intervention in the markets, the big question is, as always, how much intervention and of what sort, should it be?
That is the area for discussion in my estimation.
The casualties of free market economics face a bankruptcy court, those of socialism face a firing squad. I'll take my chances with free markets thanks very much.
As has been said earlier, the principal problem with the Marxist utopia, is that it doesn't take account of the greatest variable - people.
Well, of course capitalism suffers to a similar degree from the same issue, those damned people and their independent will and tendency to look after 'number one' first. And don't anyone deny that has also happened under every Marxist regime ever.
The problem for either case always ends with;
Marxism - who decides the fair and equitable distribution
Capitalism - who decides the type and level of controls on business, and the levels of social support for the less fortunate.
We can't deny our socialist tendencies; National health system, unemployment benefit, housing benefit, state funded education, student loans for university, grants for poorer students.
There is plenty of room to discuss, work on, and improve, without resorting to either of the extremes, or the extremist that is the topic of this thread.
Edited by Goaty Bill 2 on Tuesday 27th June 08:45
Goaty Bill 2 said:
I don't disagree with you there. I share the same preferences.
As has been said earlier, the principal problem with the Marxist utopia, is that it doesn't take account of the greatest variable - people.
Well, of course capitalism suffers to a similar degree from the same issue, those damned people and their independent will and tendency to look after 'number one' first. And don't anyone deny that has also happened under every Marxist regime ever.
The problem for either case always ends with;
Marxism - who decides the fair and equitable distribution
Capitalism - who decides the type and level of controls on business, and the levels of social support for the less fortunate.
But the whole point of a free market is that the tendency of people to 'look after number one', IE keep a roof over their head and give their children the best start in life, is turned to advantage.As has been said earlier, the principal problem with the Marxist utopia, is that it doesn't take account of the greatest variable - people.
Well, of course capitalism suffers to a similar degree from the same issue, those damned people and their independent will and tendency to look after 'number one' first. And don't anyone deny that has also happened under every Marxist regime ever.
The problem for either case always ends with;
Marxism - who decides the fair and equitable distribution
Capitalism - who decides the type and level of controls on business, and the levels of social support for the less fortunate.
Free market has a shortage of toilet rolls. Paper manufacturers say 'the price of toilet rolls has gone up, let's make more'. Supply increases, price drops.
Socialist state has a shortage of toilet rolls. Tough. maybe the price will go up, but if so the govt says 'if people make toilet rolls to take advantage of the higher price they will make a profit, how terrible. Let's fix the price to ensure everyone could afford toilet rolls if they could find them which they can't.' Then blame the shortage on the CIA.
I accept that free market economics have a lot of positives - but don't be fooled into thinking it's a hard science.
I know I keep referring to progressive politics, and a lot of people on here claim that progressive politics is stupid (and they seem to align it with the left), but it is interesting that support for key progressive features such as a basic income and a maximum wage ratio have both been voted on recently in Switzerland. Yes they were voted down, for now, but it shows the level of concern that even one of the world's most Capitalist countries has about the growing wealth divide.
I know I keep referring to progressive politics, and a lot of people on here claim that progressive politics is stupid (and they seem to align it with the left), but it is interesting that support for key progressive features such as a basic income and a maximum wage ratio have both been voted on recently in Switzerland. Yes they were voted down, for now, but it shows the level of concern that even one of the world's most Capitalist countries has about the growing wealth divide.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff