Labour's current policy would've been considered solidly remain, until the Lib Dem's decided democracy is a mistake.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
I'm not saying the desired effect is reducing everyone down to a poorer lever, just that this will be the inevitable outcome.
Let's say that a "perfect situation" occurs and private schooling is abolished. You instantly have maybe a £8-10 billion budget deficit in the schooling sector as well as over half a million more students having to be instantly integrated into an already burgeoning state system.
More investment you say? Well we're already sporting the biggest tax to GDP ratio for the UK in normal economic times. We're already "underspending" in Health, Transport, Defence, Policing, Education, Welfare, Pensions and Local Government. But spent that huge budget surplus we've been nesting away for hard times? We're £1.8 Trillion in debt with a deficit of near £40 Billion a year. Johnson is also jizzing billions in every direction already with no plan to pay for it... And the less said about Corbyn's Labour plans to plug the gap the better.
If you don't trust the government to allocate the required funding resources to state schools, that's a very good reason to not ban private schools. The suggestion that state schools would improve if the better private schools were nationalised is, quite frankly, insane.
I dunno, what is the difference between being rich enough to pay 2k/month for school fees and 2k/month for a mortgage for a house near a top state school, if the outcome for your kid is access to the best teaching and facilities? It is still privileged access denied to the poor.
Actually I don't think they just want free movement limited to Europeans... They want to expand it
Erm... Vote winner?????????
That is absolutely an issue and ending rich people having advantages under capitalism isn't possible but they can be reduced and removing these vile schools designed to create social capital for children of rich parents would be a hugely significant change.
It might be if the solution weren't always "worse education for the richest", to harmonise things.
We fundamentally need competition in every sector. Without competition every business is destined for failure because you remove any incentive to be better.
Competition is the absolute key that unlocks success in every walk of life. Competition in performances based salary. Competition in bad organisations going bust (hello Thomas Cook). Competition in bad schools and hospitals being put out of business by good ones.
This doesn't meant 100% free market forces shafting poor people. It means giving everyone the resource to make their own decisions, rather than telling them they must use crap services "because socialism".
If you need surgery and it costs £5k on the NHS, have a voucher system where you can spend this voucher anywhere. Free market forces will mean poor peacticioners fail and gold ones expand. If your shit school costs the government £10k a year per pupil, give parents a voucher and let the parents choose where to spend it.
If state hospitals and education win all the business and the extra competition merely makes them work harder, fantastic. If every single state institution goes bump as private companies are providing better services at the same cost then great also as the patients and pupils are the sole beneficiaries.
Why competition law exists but doesn't apply to state systems is beyond me. Any critical thinker must look at state systems and think "what's the incentive for them to be better".
Or maybe they're not a single issue party and will run a second referendum.
Spot on. Beat me to it!
It’s really not insane though is it? It isn’t even a remotely unpopular opinion. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
I’ve already gone over this but there is quite clearly a big difference between the two. Private schools are largely restricted to the wealthy... far more so than state schools that happen to be in affluent areas. Affluent areas are often not far in distance from more working class areas. If you think of a wealthy area, you will usually find there are poorer areas that aren’t a big distance away.
Why dod you think the more competetive and privatised health systems in the US, Switzerland, and Germany, cost substantially more per capita for comparable outcomes compared to the moribund uncompetitive NHS? Why does the rate of private sector involvement in healthcare correlate to higher healthcare expenditures across Europe?
Isn't that merely a mimic or the Tory "vote UKIP get Corbyn" nonsense?
Except the overwhelming message to Corbyn for the last three and a half years has been near enough the opposite, 'Get off the fence', although some have said that means 'campaign outright for remain', and others say it means 'be honest and admit you're anti-EU', but either way it's not what you're saying.
I can barely keep up. I thought his 7/10 rating on The Last Leg singlehandedly lost the campaign?
They also demanded a People's Vote. Then got one and decided revoke was the only policy that didn't put you in Farage's pocket.
I think we can discount the US straight away because the level of lobbyism and outside of market force intervention makes their system inherently a poor example.
England also has more than twice the population density of Switzerland and nearly twice the density of Germany; so it's obviously going to be more efficient irrspective of the system.
In terms of private sector involvement I'm not saying that they'll be magically better... In fact I'd imagine there would be half a dozen failures for every successful private health provider. However that's the point isn't it? All poor providers have to fail in order for there to be a good system evolve and grow. Also hell of they all failed to be successful being paid the same for treatments as NHS costs then hell we're no worse off.
Imagine if we banned private involvement in space travel. SpaceX and there competitors wouldn't exist who've pushed the boundaries of space travel more in the last decade or so than in the previous 5.
When literally all around our lives are the exceptional benefits of competition. Messi Vs Ronaldo. Djokovic Vs Nadal Vs Federer. IPhone Vs Samsung. Battery technologies. Green energy technologies. Robotics.Pharmaceutical breakthroughs. Hell even private sector breakthroughs in the development of cultured meat and 3D printing.
Irrespective of pretty much every other area of life being dominated by technological breakthroughs as a result of free market competition; our response to providing heavily regulated charitable competition in health and education is "outrageous".
Last edited:
No, because it is true, unless you can suggest a realistic outcome whereby Brexit is reversed without the need for the Labour party in office? Likewise, there is an obvious rationale behind the Tory claim. A typical Tory voter turning to the Brexit Party is only making a Labour government more likely. So that's not nonsense either.
In that case we may as well make illegal any party that isn't the Tories or Labour on the strength that irrespective of being more closely aligned with your views if you aren't voting Labour you're voting Tory and vice versa.
It isn't like patterns in voting don't actually effect the main parties stances bringing them closer to the central ground for example.
Last edited:
How on earth that follows from the points I have made I have no idea, but that's a monumental leap of logic you've made there. Congratulations.
I really hoped you were going to make a case for proportional representation then.
The case you made instead was depressing.
I don't know if you really mean you can't keep up or not, but I'm happy to say I can't anyway. I don't know what the Last Leg is either, sorry.
Yeah, it's true to say revoke would have been highlighted by Farage, but at least it would have attracted others, whereas the continued fence-sitting has still handed ammunition to Farage, but gained support from no one.
Your stance seemed to be that not voting for Labour was essentially voting Tory (and presumably vice versa). If that's the case then there's only two parties to vote for, no?
I agree with PR for what it's worth. However I find the argument that you shouldn't vote with your conscience merely due to "strategic" reasons is exactly the reason we have two terrible parties with clowns in charge (irrspective of being stuck with an undemocratic voting system).
It does seem to be the only way to reconcile the increasing fragmentation of the electorate. I get that people dislike the post-election horsetrading, but at least you can be reasonably certain that your vote can go towards parties and platforms that you agree with, without having to fret over "the other guys getting in" if you vote a certain way.
That's the system we are in. Its unfortunate, and it is a problem. But until PR comes in, voting with your conscience can inadvertently bring quite the opposite to what you intended.
I tend to agree. If we introduced PR and reformed the media to be truly balanced then we may be able to have truly representative democracy.
It feels like a pipe dream at this stage tbh!
The insinuation here is that voting for anyone but labour isn't voting to remain, despite labour lot being a remain party.
There's a greater chance of watering down Brexit is you vote for a clearly anti Brexit party (Lib Dems) as that would be their red line for any coalition.
Let's say Tories win 275 seats and Lib Dems win 80 seats. The Tories would prefer to water down Brexit to appease the Lib Dems, rather than give power to Corbyn.
It can but shifts in voting patterns do effect change. Also voting for the bad to prevent the awful is bound to end up with a sole choice between the bad and the awful... That's obvious.
I voted to leave and despise Corbyn, however I won't vote for either the Brexit Party or Johnson's Tories (I'll vote Libertarian if they stand)
Are you just deliberately misunderstanding what I'm saying now/taking the piss for the sake of argument? How on earth have you made the logical leaps you have from my simple point that there is not really a plausible scenario in which Brexit is reversed without the presence of the Labour party in office. The Con/LD coalition you posit suggests a watered down Brexit, which is still Brexit. My point is really not hard to understand and I am unsure as to why you are still making the absurd inference that I am suggesting that the only legitimate Remain vote is a vote for Labour.
They're clearly not interested in obtaining votes - no-one must challenge the 'Jeremy can do no wrong' cult.
Few weeks ago I said they'd be lucky to get third, are we now looking at fourth?
Go to a bookies.
Haven't got one here- the other problem is that here it's not ooh Jeremy Corbyn , it's who's Jeremy Corbyn?
Good god this is hard work with you being either disingenuous or merely contrarian.
Let's try again. Do you think Labour winning 230 seats and Lib Dems winning 100 seats would be more of less likely to result in Brexit than Jeremy Corbyn winning a 100 seat majority?
Head online, there's hundreds of them. Put your money where your prediction is and you'll absolutely rake it in.
The Lib Dems would agree to a watered down Brexit within 24 hours of negotiating with the Tories. Maybe in exchange for 10p carrier bags.
Not allowed.
Looking at what happened today, where it seemingly was turned into a "support Corbyn" matter to prevent him suffering a loss, it's hard not to see a similar thing happening in a special conference.
Perhaps... Though wouldn't labour have to win power (a virtually impossible task with the current brexit fudge I think) for there to even be a special conference ... So it's unlikely
But yeah if Corbyn negotiates a deal and he says it's an amazing deal then for sure the special conference becomes lots of oooooh Jeremy Corbyn and purge anybody who disagrees