Christmas Tree 3997 Posted August 9, 2015 Author Share Posted August 9, 2015 very good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 38752 Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 It gets easier. A year ago my eldest couldn't read at all. *Doffs cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makom 0 Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 28 pages? Is there owt in here worth reading, or is it all just CT being a tit and others reacting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 38752 Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Nowt worth reading. Off you fuck, there's a dear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 30396 Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 Nowt worth reading. Off you fuck, there's a dear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makom 0 Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 So, he did a press interview in which he said he'd like to reinstate Clause 4, either the original or an updated version. When it gets a predictably negative response, his office releases a statement saying he never said he wanted to reinstate the original Clause 4. How's that different to any other mainstream politician? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makom 0 Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 The thing about Clause 4 is though, everything that made nationalised industries unpopular (poor quality goods made at over-inflated prices, if they were being made at all due to overly powerful unions) has largely been corrected by globalisation and the weakening of the unions. Therefore, a sensible politician could make a case that in certain cases (i.e. steel) where Britain is getting an inordinate kicking on the global stage and the industry has worthwhile fixed assets (infrastructure and skills), that a re-nationalisation could bring the benefits of state ownership without the pitfalls. I rather think Corbyn though is not thinking in these terms at all though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 14042 Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 Hm. It's almost as if rolling out Blair and his cronies to warn against Corbyn is backfiring for some reason... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 I think it's a foregone conclusion now. NuLabour is dead and given what it's become, not a moment too soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14585 Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 Hmmm..... Alastair Campbell: It Has to Be ABC - Anyone But Corbyn: Labour Could Be Finished if He Wins http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/alastair-campbell/it-has-to-be-abc-anyone-b_b_7964900.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 30396 Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 The thing about Clause 4 is though, everything that made nationalised industries unpopular (poor quality goods made at over-inflated prices, if they were being made at all due to overly powerful unions) has largely been corrected by globalisation and the weakening of the unions. Therefore, a sensible politician could make a case that in certain cases (i.e. steel) where Britain is getting an inordinate kicking on the global stage and the industry has worthwhile fixed assets (infrastructure and skills), that a re-nationalisation could bring the benefits of state ownership without the pitfalls. I rather think Corbyn though is not thinking in these terms at all though. He's only mentioned Royal Mail and the railways hasn't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 All this jockeying to try and stop Corbyn is a revelation. New Labour and other elite stooges earning their money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34441 Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/09/jeremy-corbyn-labour-overspending-did-not-cause-financial-crisis One for CT to get one paragraph into, glaze over and come back and type "Get real :lol:" to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toonotl 2411 Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) De-regulation was all Labour. Deal wiv it. Even against much complaint from across the pond. Not that the Tories were against it.....Even they were startled. Edited August 12, 2015 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 All this jockeying to try and stop Corbyn is a revelation. New Labour and other elite stooges earning their money. Couldn't agree more. I think the debate around clause 4 is needed. The economist behind Corbyn is quite clear (Corbyn less so, he confuses the message a little bit), for each sector of the economy we set an objective: what is the objective of the railways? Is it to be provide the most cost-effective rail system at value for money for the taxpaye? If yes, then the question at the heart of the debate is what does the tax payer want? If that becomes a fair low priced system that connects parts of the country even if that means the cost of connecting those parts has to be subsidised then this leads directly back to the question around clause 4. This is 'which economic system of resource allocation most efficiently delivers against those objectives?' Our 'education' objectives of access and fairness mean that we don't select just the private market to deliver the education system. The social 'objectives' drive the choice of allocation system (mostly state run). The same exercise of setting social objectives and selecting the system to deliver it needs to be looked at for all services that have high social value (value beyond that derived from private use). Corbyn is correct to address this; the elite's framing of his views as a return to clause 4 is politics interfering with excellent social-welfarism (which is a branch of micro-economics, not a socialist concept). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 30396 Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 It's one area where, if he gets his point across, it could be really popular in the south east. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3978 Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 De-regulation was all Labour. Deal wiv it. Even against much complaint from across the pond. Not that the Tories were against it.....Even they were startled.Yes but the starting point was abolishing the retail/investment banking division and that was Thatcher/Reagan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3978 Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Also in reply to Chez I think another narrative which is central to that which labour have lost track of is the idea that private/profit is ALWAYS best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) Couldn't agree more. I think the debate around clause 4 is needed. The economist behind Corbyn is quite clear (Corbyn less so, he confuses the message a little bit), for each sector of the economy we set an objective: what is the objective of the railways? Is it to be provide the most cost-effective rail system at value for money for the taxpaye? If yes, then the question at the heart of the debate is what does the tax payer want? If that becomes a fair low priced system that connects parts of the country even if that means the cost of connecting those parts has to be subsidised then this leads directly back to the question around clause 4. This is 'which economic system of resource allocation most efficiently delivers against those objectives?' Our 'education' objectives of access and fairness mean that we don't select just the private market to deliver the education system. The social 'objectives' drive the choice of allocation system (mostly state run). The same exercise of setting social objectives and selecting the system to deliver it needs to be looked at for all services that have high social value (value beyond that derived from private use). Corbyn is correct to address this; the elite's framing of his views as a return to clause 4 is politics interfering with excellent social-welfarism (which is a branch of micro-economics, not a socialist concept). Nice overview. Get the Varoufakis book btw. Edited August 12, 2015 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Also in reply to Chez I think another narrative which is central to that which labour have lost track of is the idea that private/profit is ALWAYS best. Indeed. It's actually because no one solved Arrow's impossibility theorem but that's a bit too deep for here. Private market is usually best when all that matters is the total sum of private value. Markets usually (but not always) deliver this. However, the assumption is that the total sum of private value is the 'objective'. Economics is built on 'objective functions' which are algebraic expressions which can be 'maximised' with calculus. It's this 'objective setting' which should be at he heart of every debate on how to deliver a service - market or state? As soon as the objective is not 'maximise private value' then then the market won't be the solution. How do you capture social objectives? Via social preferences? How do turn this into something that can be 'maximised' via cost-effectice state run systems? You rank the social preferences. Which is where Arrow comes in, the old cunt that he was... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) Don't have to be massively cost effective either. Get money down the tree, employment (remove some welfare dependency), increase casual spending for the masses, reduce debt. /laissezfaireeconomics. Widen congestion charge to M25. New tariffs on goods made outside the eu (ie China). Make Wales a free trade zone (for manufacturing only). Send a letter to Google, Amazon etc...For back taxes of say 500m each or shut them down. Companies trading in the UK but registered in Lux, Monaco, Gibralter pay a new sales tax (the parky tax) 15% on transaction not later after the figures get massaged. Edited August 12, 2015 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14585 Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 It's one area where, if he gets his point across, it could be really popular in the south east. Agreed. The thing is he's neither charismatic or a great orartor and the sun/mail reading fuckers who decide elections have already made their minds up about him due to the Tory propaganda machine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 30396 Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Thing is, it's made out like all is lost for Labour but the Tories only managed a small majority against Ed Miliband. Depends how it plays out in the press though, as you suggest. It'll be all about the UK being taken back to the 70s and all that. But everyone from Blair, Campbell and the right wing press being against Corbyn makes me think he genuinely has something to offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) This left wing Labour can't win is a myth. Media ownership needs to be looked at and their needs to be regulation with regards to political coverage during election years. People outside the UK shouldn't be allowed to own UK media and manufacture victories. I mean these are the basics right? What the Capitalist does is bog standard - create a voodoo enemy ie immigration while at the same time flooding the market with cheap labour. And take over the printing presses. Start wars to keep the peace. Go on and on about Climate change while hiking up the prices of climate sensitive goods. Promote feminism whilst increasing the yacht harem. Hard line on drugs whilst flying in the supply from Miami via Columbia. Edited August 12, 2015 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now