The labour Leader thread...

[RDM]

This bares very little resemblance to the ideas put forward by Corbyn.

I've not really been paying that much attention to what he has been advocating, I was just answering the question "What is socialism" which, at it's heart, is about the ownership of the economy by the collective.

Has anyone here advocated for more then Nordic levels of socialism?

The problem with trying to copy Nordic levels of socialism is that we don't really have the same sort of social setup.

Norway for example has a population of about 5.2m and a massive sovereign wealth fund, they have pretty much the highest GDP per capita outside of tax havens. They can effectively afford to be more socialist because the world capitalist system allows them to be. The other Scandinavian countries are similar, small populations, high wealth.

They all however have a capitalist base too, without which the social projects wouldn't be funded.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Well no - I don't think it's about not having principles, it's that his principles towards preferring a socialist system seemed to take preference over the principles of giving his child the best start in life. Which is pretty bad.

But the long term view is that a strong socialist system will give his child the best long term future, rather than bowing to a short term right wing construct.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

On paper it is a fantastic idea, sadly every time it has been tried to be implemented wholesale lots of people have died.

You're confusing Socialism with Stalinism/Lenism.

Marxist theory dictates that Socialism is a transitional state leading to Communism (which has never been implmented either FWIW). Socialism is not intended to be a "permanent" state.

 

[elmarko]

Really? I am thinking confirmation bias rather than your much vaunted objectivity.

It appears that the word 'some' is also missing in the minds of others.

 

[RDM]

Norway doesn't spend the money from its wealth fund, though, does it? They're just saving it all up/reinvesting, because one day their oil revenues will run out. So that's not why they can 'afford to be more socialist', is it?

I have no idea, but oil revenues do make up quite a bit of its GDP. They also have really high taxation and a very high cost of living.

They also have suicide rates significantly higher than ours, but they are happier!?

Joking aside, do you think a Scandinavian approach would work in the UK?

 

[RDM]

You're confusing Socialism with Stalinism/Lenism.

Marxist theory dictates that Socialism is a transitional state leading to Communism (which has never been implmented either FWIW). Socialism is not intended to be a "permanent" state.

Not really confusing anything, just simplifying for the sake of brevity. But if you can point out any successful implementations I am all ears. Every time someone tries to implement it wholesale mistakes get made, a new ideology gets born and millions die.

It appears that the word 'some' is also missing in the minds of others.

Like your post which actually had "many"?

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Not really confusing anything, just simplifying for the sake of brevity. But if you can point out any successful implementations I am all ears. Every time someone tries to implement it wholesale mistakes get made, a new ideology gets born and millions die.

I can't point to any successful Socialist state (much like there isn't really any successful Capitalist state). Problems occur when states try to implement Communism without the required transitional Socialist state (see my response above).

 

[Mr Jack]

You're confusing Socialism with Stalinism/Lenism.

Socialism covers a broad spread of views. The relevant one, in my view, is Social Democracy and on that front it's easy to point to successful examples: Denmark, Sweden and Germany, for example, do it to varying degrees.

 

[Dimi]

Only politician I've come across who doesn't seem have his head up his ass Jeremy Corbyn, the other being Caroline Lucas.

I'll sign up for Labour and support him, if that's what it takes to bring in someone who actually stands for something as opposed to the other flip floppers in the running.

 

[elmarko]

Like your post which actually had "many"?

Neither of which are comparable to 'all'.

The facts are there are many in this thread who seem unable to grasp why a person may stick to certain ethical principles when it doesn't directly benefit them or their kin. This lack of appreciation for certain characteristics is notable in it's absence from a certain side of the debate.

Lets face it, nobody votes Conservative to help the poor & vulnerable in society.

 

[lunar]

Nationalise the railway and energy sector.
We've had them private sector now for a generation. Clearly it's not working. Railway costs are phenomenally high. Energy companies raise prices when gas price increases, but never seem to reduce their prices if the wholesale gas declines. I don't blame them; let them rip us off and make a massive profit and high dividends for shareholders, afterall that is their business.

 

[Danthus]

Nationalise the railway and energy sector.
We've had them private sector now for a generation. Clearly it's not working. Railway costs are phenomenally high. Energy companies raise prices when gas price increases, but never seem to reduce their prices if the wholesale gas declines. I don't blame them; let them rip us off and make a massive profit and high dividends for shareholders, afterall that is their business.

Funded how?

 

[Pneumonic]

It would just be nice of them to elect someone that I feel I could vote for..

I voted Tory for the first time in my life at the last election... oh the hope for a slightly left of centre Labour party... with someone who has a bit of charisma to make me warm and fuzzy whilst they lie through their teeth!

Blair may not be the most popular politician on this forum!! but at-least the man could lie to you well!

At this point I would be far more likely to vote for a Tony Blair lead central Labour party.. than Tory.. but Cameron will get my vote every time if Labour swing hard left.

 

[Danthus]

By borrowing the money cheaply . It's not a crazy thing to do, given we currently have to give them billions upon billions anyway. It's £3.8bn a year (29% of expenditure), then we took on Network Rail's £38bn debt last year, own Network Rail, etc.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/86e3bb10-b38f-11e4-a45f-00144feab7de.html#axzz3h7J7rxOY

Correct me if I am wrong but Network Rail only run the infrastructure.

If we are talking about re nationalising the train operators how well do you think borrowing money to fund private business will go down?

 

[Danthus]

Angela for deputy!

http://order-order.com/2015/07/28/where-eagle-dares-to-hire-unpaid-interns/#_@/Nd-VqITprbQEUg

Talk about an own goal.

 

[scorza]

Correct me if I am wrong but Network Rail only run the infrastructure.

If we are talking about re nationalising the train operators how well do you think borrowing money to fund private business will go down?

All the TOCs are run on a franchise basis with ownership reverting to the government after a set number of years (think it's 7 years), so the government doesn't need any capital to purchase these companies - just patience. IMO there's an argument for keeping one of the franchises in public hands to keep the other TOCs honest - recently the East Coast Mainline franchise was nationally owned and it completely out-performed every privately owned franchise out there. Sadly the government decided to privatise it again as it threatened their private = good mantra.

 

[elmarko]

The problem with our rail networks is we do all the unprofitable things (rails, infrastructure, bailouts & subsidising the unpopular routes) & private business enjoys cherry picking all the profitable sections.

Really we should be off-setting the profitable sections against the unprofitable ones. If a nationalised industry runs at a loss, that can be fine - as currently if the entire sector (including the unprofitable ones) was put into private ownership it would be run at a loss.

We essentially have the worst of both worlds.

 

[scorza]

I might not agree with everything Corbyn says but there's something about him I like - he's not exactly Westminster elite is he? It might just be he actually knows what it's like to be a normal human being, despite representing Islington for so long.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-rides-night-bus-6175223

Much has been said about Labour leadership contender Jeremy Corbyn's attitude towards our Tory government and their eye-watering expenses culture - but here's a photo to prove he's a man of his word.

The bookies' favourite to head up the Party was snapped taking a night bus in London, showing just why he is believed to have one of the lowest expenses claims of any parliamentarian.

I don't think this is a stunt either.

 

[PlacidCasual]

Nationalise the railway and energy sector.
We've had them private sector now for a generation. Clearly it's not working. Railway costs are phenomenally high. Energy companies raise prices when gas price increases, but never seem to reduce their prices if the wholesale gas declines. I don't blame them; let them rip us off and make a massive profit and high dividends for shareholders, afterall that is their business.

With regard to the energy industry you have swallowed the MSM and politiians codswollop. The best reason to re-nationalise the energy industry is not the fairytale profiteering of the copanies it would be to reduce politicians interference. Currently they play the companies off against each other and carve out special exceptions that has ended up with EVERY market participant receiving subsidies, politicians have broken the market.

 

[Bear]

I might not agree with everything Corbyn says but there's something about him I like - he's not exactly Westminster elite is he? It might just be he actually knows what it's like to be a normal human being, despite representing Islington for so long.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-rides-night-bus-6175223



I don't think this is a stunt either.

To be fair, it's probably because the average person doesn't have a clue who he is so is easier to take public transport. Outside of the leadership contest I hadn't ever heard of him before. It is refreshing to actually see a real Labour politician run for once instead of the lets pretend Tory lite sell outs.