Jeremy Corbyn

[muppet]

I got as far as this:

1. The deficit should be tackled - but not through spending cuts and not to an "arbitrary" deadline. Instead Corbyn would fund its reduction via higher taxes for the rich and a crackdown on tax avoidance and evasion while tackling "corporate welfare" and tax breaks for companies.

Then I thought another spoofer.

The deficit is caused by spending more than they take in. The solution, of course, is not to look at spending.  Just get someone else to pay for everything. Any halfwit, in any house, in any country, that is spending more than they earn, will look at cutting spending as well as seeking to increase revenue. But not a left-wing politician it seems.

I'd be inclinced to agree, in general. IN most western European countries government has reached the limit if its capacity, if it wishes to spend more on thing it must spend less on something else.  However, Seanie's point above is valid in that corporate welfare is expenditure and not the best use of public money.

If by Corporate Welfare you mean bailing out the banks or any other sector I agree completely. The should live and particularly die by their own capitalist ideals.

[armaghniac]

Likewise, Private Finance Initiative deals in  the NHS might be a "mess" that are costing the health service billions and any reasonable person would support ending these. But what if some are not a mess?

[muppet]

Likewise, Private Finance Initiative deals in  the NHS might be a "mess" that are costing the health service billions and any reasonable person would support ending these. But what if some are not a mess?

I am not familiar with these deals, but I do believe health and education should be free for all. However that doesn't mean you should simply throw the money down the drain, as we do in health in Ireland.

[dferg]

Everything is fine, privatisation of the health service is inevitable and an American model is desirable, just vote Tory then.

[armaghniac]

My point is that doctrinaire contensions that all health or transport should be public are not the answer. The measure should be which gives the citizens best service, I.e. Output measures.

[Clov]

The old running a household analogy for running a government, favoured by the tabloids.

The analogy breaks down because governments can increase income at will whereas my income is more or less fixed for the time being.

Really?

But if the Government 'increases income at will' by taxation, doesn't that reduce your income? Thus you move towards deficit. And you will cut spending, even if the Government is too stupid to, and thus the Government income will reduce. And so on, until this nonsense is voted out again.

I don't think this reductio ad absurdum holds because government spending in the right way (a major caveat, i know) can produce growth.

[dferg]

My point is that doctrinaire contensions that all health or transport should be public are not the answer. The measure should be which gives the citizens best service, I.e. Output measures.

The government is not concerned about which gives the best value for money.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/selling-nhs-profit-full-list-4646154

[armaghniac]

My point is that doctrinaire contensions that all health or transport should be public are not the answer. The measure should be which gives the citizens best service, I.e. Output measures.

The government is not concerned about which gives the best value for money.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/selling-nhs-profit-full-list-4646154

THis suggests corruption. But aside from out and out corruption governments have a poor record of measuring the effectiveness of their spending. It is all about "budgets", not about results.

[magpie seanie]

24 things he believes in
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34209478

How many do you agree with?

I scored 23 with a may be on the other.

24 for me.

That's not really the point though. The point is he stand for SOMETHING. He's not just chasing power for powers sake. He wants to bring changes. He offers an alternative. There's nothing so depressing as knowing no matter what way you vote you're getting the same thing.

It's just possible enough people will wake up to this "head I win, tails you lose" capitalism we're under the yoke of. The numbers that signed up and joined or re-joined Labour are encouraging. Even if you don't agree with him - I think people being engaged in politics is a good thing.

[Tony Baloney]

24 great policies if it was 1972.

[Maguire01]

24 things he believes in
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34209478

How many do you agree with?

I scored 23 with a may be on the other.

24 for me.

That's not really the point though. The point is he stand for SOMETHING. He's not just chasing power for powers sake. He wants to bring changes. He offers an alternative. There's nothing so depressing as knowing no matter what way you vote you're getting the same thing.

It's just possible enough people will wake up to this "head I win, tails you lose" capitalism we're under the yoke of. The numbers that signed up and joined or re-joined Labour are encouraging. Even if you don't agree with him - I think people being engaged in politics is a good thing.

The bit in bold... I do wonder. He entered this race not expecting to win. Did he really want to lead Labour? Does he really want to be PM? Does he believe that, in the unlikely event that he'd be elected PM, he could implement his wishlist? He has plenty of ideas that seem 'nice'. So did Tsipras.

[deiseach]

The old running a household analogy for running a government, favoured by the tabloids.

The analogy breaks down because governments can increase income at will whereas my income is more or less fixed for the time being.

I really hope he manages to introduce the idea that an economy is not a household into the conversation. If that's all he manages, his election will be a worthwhile exercise.

[armaghniac]

The old running a household analogy for running a government, favoured by the tabloids.

The analogy breaks down because governments can increase income at will whereas my income is more or less fixed for the time being.

I really hope he manages to introduce the idea that an economy is not a household into the conversation. If that's all he manages, his election will be a worthwhile exercise.

Indeed. As a man who divorced his wife because of a dogmatic approach to children's schooling, it may be better that his government is not like his household.

[deiseach]

Indeed. As a man who divorced his wife because of a dogmatic approach to children's schooling, it may be better that his government is not like his household.

We're agreed then. Happy days.

[NAG1]

Indeed. As a man who divorced his wife because of a dogmatic approach to children's schooling, it may be better that his government is not like his household.

We're agreed then. Happy days.

It is a totally ridiculous debate to have anyway because he will never be elected.