Corbyn economics backed

Status
Not open for further replies.
Market Where? said:
This is the type of thing that lost Miliband hundreds of thousands if not millions of votes - the assumption that people are so stupid that they are swayed by TV and therefore cant be trusted to vote correctly. Some bigoted woman!!
Most people on the SMB will know at least one person taking the piss on benefits but the lefts response is either to deny it or use deflection and throw in the banker/tax avoidance card.
Click to expand...

Where are people getting their facts from given the right wing has quite a hold on our media currently?

Facts that don't make sensational headlines are the getting across, such as the fact that the estimated cost of people taking the piss on benefits is less than what CICDCSC is spending on tackling the problem
 


Cockney Mackem said:
Where are people getting their facts from given the right wing has quite a hold on our media currently?

Facts that don't make sensational headlines are the getting across, such as the fact that the estimated cost of people taking the piss on benefits is less than what CICDCSC is spending on tackling the problem
Click to expand...
its exactly the same as our discussion on the other thread. If you say there is no problem but the electorates experience is that there is a problem then you have lost credibility immediately. Some bigoted woman - the perfect example.
You also inadvertently give the Tories free reign to hammer fuck out of everyone.
Murder probably doesn't cost as much as investigating and jailing murderers.
 
Market Where? said:
its exactly the same as our discussion on the other thread. If you say there is no problem but the electorates experience is that there is a problem then you have lost credibility immediately. Some bigoted woman - the perfect example.
You also inadvertently give the Tories free reign to hammer fuck out of everyone.
Murder probably doesn't cost as much as investigating and jailing murderers.
Click to expand...

With respect (and I think we agree on many things) you're creating a bit of a false equivalence between calling the electorate ignorant and calling the sources of information on which the electorate has to rely dishonest and slanted. The electorate is fairly reasonable to draw a lot of the conclusions it draws about things. But I would stand very firmly behind my assertion that standard regular people - who are not stupid - are not mind readers either and if they are being given a totally false picture of what's going on, they will have a false picture of what's going on. Otherwise propaganda, spin and control of the media would not be the focus of any effort on the part of politicians, businesses or any other organisation that wants to have things all its own way.

I would go a step further in terms of your analogy about murder - and crime in general. The clear up rates of murder and violent crime are not great. There's a whole range of reasons for that. And while people would support all kinds of measures to help with that, it's a very dangerous game to start suggesting for example that civil liberties such as the right to a lawyer and a fair trial should be done away with to make it easier to tidy up the crime figures. And this is a highly relevant analogy as we have had multiple governments (with Blair their apogee) who've tried all kinds of dirty tricks and manipulation of the facts to do pretty much exactly that.
 
Last edited:
AndrewP said:
Things like a maximum wage stink of envy IMO.
Click to expand...
how much do you need?
AndrewP said:
I think it would cost too much and the money would be better off spent elsewhere.

Back when far fewer went to university it cost a lot less to pay for their tuition.
Click to expand...
so make them free for people who come from free school meal backfgrounds
Institute for financial studies estimate this would cost 0.005% of GDP
 
Cockney Mackem said:
the right wing has quite a hold on our media currently
Click to expand...

Not sure that argument washes any more.

A majority of people get their news from the internet, not tabloids.

TV news is bound to be impartial by OFCOM rules.

I think the problem is cynicism of politicians - and capitalist society - is at such an all time high, people are prepared to believe any mad shit theory.
 
Cockney Mackem said:
With respect (and I think we agree on many things) you're creating a bit of a false equivalence between calling the electorate ignorant and calling the sources of information on which the electorate has to rely dishonest and slanted. The electorate is fairly reasonable to draw a lot of the conclusions it draws about things. But I would stand very firmly behind my assertion that standard regular people - who are not stupid - are not mind readers either and if they are being given a totally false picture of what's going on, they will have a false picture of what's going on. Otherwise propaganda, spin and control of the media would not be the focus of any effort on the part of politicians, businesses or any other organisation that wants to have things all its own way.

I would go a step further in terms of your analogy about murder - and crime in general. The clear up rates of murder and violent crime are not great. There's a whole range of reasons for that. And while people would support all kinds of measures to help with that, it's a very dangerous game to start suggesting for example that civil liberties such as the right to a lawyer and a fair trial should be done away with to make it easier to tidy up the crime figures. And this is a highly relevant analogy as we have had multiple governments (with Blair their apogee) who've tried all kinds of dirty tricks and manipulation of the facts to do pretty much exactly that.
Click to expand...
Agree on many things - piss off you loony!
Actually I have just finished a bottle of white after a few post work pints- can I get back to you on this one when I can read it without having to shut one eye?
 
Bagpuss said:
"In the letter to which David Blanchflower, a former member of the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee is a signatory, the economists write: “The accusation is widely made that Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters have moved to the extreme left on economic policy. But this is not supported by the candidate’s statements or policies. His opposition to austerity is actually mainstream economics, even backed by the conservative IMF. He aims to boost growth and prosperity.”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...sterity-policies-corbynomics?CMP=share_btn_fb


The tories and red tories better dig up some more dirt since their nonsense regarding his economic policies has now been totally discredited.
Click to expand...


Given the "red tories" jibe, I don't suppose you want an actual debate. But the policy described as "mainstream" in the letter was anti-austerity. That's fine. Not sure it's 100% mainstream in the way it clearly was in 2011/12 when the economy was tanking. Classical pre-neoliberal, left-wing economics i.e. Keynesianism would back austerity/retrenchment in a situation where the economy is growing and the deficit is 5%. (This is fine - Clement Attlee's economic policy was also austerity for similar reasons and he still managed to build the NHS. Was he a "Red Tory"?) Nevertheless, there is a strong argument to be made against austerity given the structural imbalances with the economy that we can see all around us. London v the North basically.

But "peoples QE" - a combination of Helicopter money and political control of the central bank - is definitely not mainstream. It completely misunderstands how QE works - the money gets recycled through the financial system and back to the Government it does not prop up banks. It does not get "spent" and certainly not in the way that helicopter money would.

The trouble with Corbyn is - and his followers will have to face up to it when they face real opponents (unlike the other three useless Labour candidates) - that is an embarrassingly poor advocate for anti-austerity. He is no Nicola Sturgeon (though whether the SNP are actually anti-austerity in deed is up for debate).
For example, his sums says he can find £120bn in corporate tax evasion when Richard Murphy himself (Corbyn's economic adviser) has admitted its more like £20bn at an optimistic best. He then cited £95bn of cuts that could be made to 'corporate welfare', seemingly oblivious to the fact that this included err tax credits. As such, his numbers could, indadvertedly, be based on completely removing tax credits - something George Osborne could only dream about.

Now, obviously Corbyn doesn't support removing tax credits. But the point is that his operation is absolutely bollocks and his sums are based on sloganeering fantasy. The fact those three useless tools can't hold him to account means nothing. The Tories will absolutely f***ing slaughter him - make absolute no mistake about that. The radical left always packs halls. It's going to be really ugly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bagpuss said:
To be fair the bankers and tax avoiders is a strong argument. There is billions more being siphoned off in avoided tax than there is in benefits.
Click to expand...

But they are totally two separate issues,tax evasion is totally wrong,benefit fraud is totally wrong,why is it that people defend benefit fraud always stating tax evasion?
 
Mainze said:
A pensioner wearing hush puppies, a tweed jacket and a sporting a beard :lol:

He's got absolutely no chance of getting elected PM, regardless of his policies. Labour should look elsewhere.
Click to expand...
'Personality politics' are part of the problem. If he has the best policies and is the most decent human being of any candidate (Labour or not) why should he not be elected? Churchill (touted by many as our greatest ever leader) retired in his early 80's iirc.
 
Laheed said:
For example, his sums says he can find £120bn in corporate tax evasion when Richard Murphy himself (Corbyn's economic adviser) has admitted its more like £20bn at an optimistic best. He then cited £95bn of cuts that could be made to 'corporate welfare', seemingly oblivious to the fact that this included err tax credits. As such, his numbers could, indadvertedly, be based on completely removing tax credits - something George Osborne could only dream about.
Click to expand...

No, his sums don't say that he can find £120bn in corporate tax evasion, you are just making things up or you have read somebody else's nonsense without bothering to check your facts.

To quote Richard Murphy on the £120bn lie;

This, again, is simply absurd. No one has said that all the £120 billion in my estimate of the tax gap can be recovered and likewise no one is suggesting to my knowledge that all tax reliefs to business should be removed. But, what Jeremy Corbyn is correctly saying is that substantial action should be taken against tax abuse and that as yet there is no evidence of this because HM RC are not being provided with any real additional resources, legislative change is so far of token nature alone, there is no demand for increased accountability from big business, and there is no willingness to crack down on those who are really abusing.
Click to expand...

Taken from his blog, not surprisingly it contradicts your claims of what both of them have said.

So why are you making things up, to suit your agenda perhaps?
 
Bagpuss said:
"In the letter to which David Blanchflower, a former member of the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee is a signatory, the economists write: “The accusation is widely made that Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters have moved to the extreme left on economic policy. But this is not supported by the candidate’s statements or policies. His opposition to austerity is actually mainstream economics, even backed by the conservative IMF. He aims to boost growth and prosperity.”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...sterity-policies-corbynomics?CMP=share_btn_fb


The tories and red tories better dig up some more dirt since their nonsense regarding his economic policies has now been totally discredited.
Click to expand...

"We're not mad, everyone else is mad!!!" <<< Mad people always say this.
 
Voice of fair play said:
But they are totally two separate issues,tax evasion is totally wrong,benefit fraud is totally wrong,why is it that people defend benefit fraud always stating tax evasion?
Click to expand...

What irritates people is that the majority of government and media attention goes on cracking down on benefit fraud when tax evasions and avoidance loopholes cost the country much more than fraud. By a factor of ten iirc using HMRC figures. The actual figure for evasion, avoidance and uncollected tax might be closer to forty times that lost to benefit fraud and over payments.

Benefit fraud is wrong and should be cracked down upon, nobody will argue against that, what people will argue about is how the government prioritises combating fraud and evasion.
 
Inkman said:
What irritates people is that the majority of government and media attention goes on cracking down on benefit fraud when tax evasions and avoidance loopholes cost the country much more than fraud. By a factor of ten iirc using HMRC figures. The actual figure for evasion, avoidance and uncollected tax might be closer to forty times that lost to benefit fraud and over payments.

Benefit fraud is wrong and should be cracked down upon, nobody will argue against that, what people will argue about is how the government prioritises combating fraud and evasion.
Click to expand...

Yeah agree with that mate,just find them two separate issues ,you say nobody will argue that benefit fraud should be cracked down,I find plenty people arguing against it and not admitting it is wrong.

In fact every benefit thread there is,most people use tax evasion as a smokescreen to defend it,when you are right both are wrong.

But certainly agree tax evasion is a bigger issue.
 
Voice of fair play said:
Yeah agree with that mate,just find them two separate issues ,you say nobody will argue that benefit fraud should be cracked down,I find plenty people arguing against it and not admitting it is wrong.

In fact every benefit thread there is,most people use tax evasion as a smokescreen to defend it,when you are right both are wrong.

But certainly agree tax evasion is a bigger issue.
Click to expand...

Can't say I've noticed may people actually arguing against investigating benefit fraud, though I've seen plenty of people arguing about the balance of investigation / coverage between the two.
 
Inkman said:
No, his sums don't say that he can find £120bn in corporate tax evasion, you are just making things up or you have read somebody else's nonsense without bothering to check your facts.

To quote Richard Murphy on the £120bn lie;



Taken from his blog, not surprisingly it contradicts your claims of what both of them have said.

So why are you making things up, to suit your agenda perhaps?
Click to expand...
Have you got a linkie to a quote from Corbyn where he says that? cos all I can find is stuff like this [from the BBC]:

<< Critics, including Labour's current shadow chancellor Chris Leslie, say this would lead to higher inflation and interest rates, with the poorest households paying the price. Mr Leslie also questions Mr Corbyn's claim that £120bn could be recovered from tax avoidance and evasion. >>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top