Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Labour leadership: Owen Smith wants 'new industrial revolution' Watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Absolutely. I strongly believe that the government will be more inefficient in how it allocates resources when compared to the free market. There are naturally certain aspects where a government needs to be active, e.g. defense.

    Why does the government need to be active in defense?
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    The fact of whose idea it was has no actual bearing on the fact that it allowed all sorts of Trots and Tories to cast ballots, and was a preposterous device in the first place.
    They should've kept 1/3 of MP&MEP votes, but merged the member and union votes
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I don't think Corbyn has a detailed policy programme. He is very clear on ideology, but he is very weak on presenting detailed policies.

    Smith on the other hand has actually put some substance there. Rather than saying simply that he is 'anti-austerity' or 'wants investment', he has given details about how much investment, how he will fund it, what the funding will be used for etc.

    Besides what's wrong with investing to grow or cutting tax loopholes?
    Fair one.

    Nothing at all, it's simply they're buzzwords that Labour uses too often without backing them up with clear specifics. It's easy to say 'We'll invest ten trillion billion on everything and fund it by 'closing tax loopholes'', it's something entirely different to show that the investment is going to work and they're not just spunking it up the wall on bridges to nowhere like the Japanese did. 'I'm going to close tax loopholes' is as helpful as saying 'I'm going to fix the economy'. Well okay, all politicians and political parties want to do that really, but how specifically are you going to manage it?! Labour say it as if they're implying the Tories have an active policy of trying to make tax loopholes.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Fair one.

    Nothing at all, it's simply they're buzzwords that Labour uses too often without backing them up with clear specifics. It's easy to say 'We'll invest ten trillion billion on everything and fund it by 'closing tax loopholes'', it's something entirely different to show that the investment is going to work and they're not just spunking it up the wall on bridges to nowhere like the Japanese did. 'I'm going to close tax loopholes' is as helpful as saying 'I'm going to fix the economy'. Well okay, all politicians and political parties want to do that really, but how specifically are you going to manage it?! Labour say it as if they're implying the Tories have an active policy of trying to make tax loopholes.
    I agree with you. It's been one of my biggest criticisms of Corbyn, that he seems incapable of forming detailed policies.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Not buying it. He's just another centrist Labour member - not a true left-winger!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    The fact of whose idea it was has no actual bearing on the fact that it allowed all sorts of Trots and Tories to cast ballots, and was a preposterous device in the first place.
    You were wrong about this, you are wrong about the Trots and Tories too. There may have been an insignificant number, but vast majority are old Labour members returning and quite a few previously non partisan non voters. They will have had to pay £25 this time.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Owen is just more of the same. It doesn't really matter what he says he is going to do, he is in the mold of the normal politician. Say what they think people want to hear, and once elected do what ever they feel like, is in their own interest or will make them popular with their peers.

    Corbyn may not be very organised, a slick operator or a conventional leader, but he is definitely not in the game for himself. He will do everything he can to combat inequality, and champion public services for the good of the people. He just needs help from competent people. Hopefully there are enough without knives in the PLP.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    The fact of whose idea it was has no actual bearing on the fact that it allowed all sorts of Trots and Tories to cast ballots, and was a preposterous device in the first place.
    Need some help carrying those goalposts?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Why does the government need to be active in defense?
    What's the alternative?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Need some help carrying those goalposts?
    You don't see the irony of that statement? Hilarious
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zayn008)
    They should've kept 1/3 of MP&MEP votes, but merged the member and union votes
    Yeah I like that idea. Unfortunately we're not in the period where the unions can organise their members to support Labour as a party of government, so the MPs have to be a backstop to prevent unsuitable candidates emerging
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Absolutely. I strongly believe that the government will be more inefficient in how it allocates resources when compared to the free market. There are naturally certain aspects where a government needs to be active, e.g. defense.
    I looked it up and I calculate the medieval state (1320s, Edward II) was around 1% of GDP. The only services it really provided was the exchequer, the courts and the sheriffs.

    Would you advocate still smaller?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    What's the alternative?
    Privatisation? Let the free market do its thing?
    Why is the state better at owning and controlling our defense systems than the free market?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    You don't see the irony of that statement? Hilarious
    So rather than even attempting to defend the blatant fallacy you committed, you just do a "No you"?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    So rather than even attempting to defend the blatant fallacy you committed, you just do a "No you"?
    I just looked back at my comment, I meant to type Miliband but typed Corbyn
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Yeah I like that idea. Unfortunately we're not in the period where the unions can organise their members to support Labour as a party of government, so the MPs have to be a backstop to prevent unsuitable candidates emerging
    I have to be honest here, I see myself as Labour but not core Labour, I'll swing when appropriate like in 2020. I respect the work of trade unions and all they do for workers in the country but I don't think they should have heavy political involvement, influence? To an extent but not a seat at the policy making table.

    Corbyn is playing on loopholes, it's the only way he's surviving and he's so disconnected from the PLP is unbelievable, he's disconnected from the left of the party too, his only support is from the militant left. I think the unions are trying to play smart here, they want Corbyn so Labour builds a connection with unions again meaning in the future they'll hold a strong influence like did prior to Kinnock, in other words Corbyn is here to undo the work of Blair & Kinnock and the worst part is, he's undoing the good stuff they done! He wants to reverse the modernisation that made Labour electable
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Privatisation? Let the free market do its thing?
    Why is the state better at owning and controlling our defense systems than the free market?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I agree with privatising most sectors but defence? That's the worst idea ever. G4S is disasterous and private defence in America is led full of corruption and inefficiency. It's in the states interest to reduce crime and protect people, it's in the free markets interest to maximise profits. Prehaps some parts of defence could be improved with co-operation in the private sector but in no way should it be down to the free market.

    Even Margaret Thatcher would think you're pathetic for wanting to leave defence to the free market.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    Owen is just more of the same. It doesn't really matter what he says he is going to do, he is in the mold of the normal politician. Say what they think people want to hear, and once elected do what ever they feel like, is in their own interest or will make them popular with their peers.

    Corbyn may not be very organised, a slick operator or a conventional leader, but he is definitely not in the game for himself. He will do everything he can to combat inequality, and champion public services for the good of the people. He just needs help from competent people. Hopefully there are enough without knives in the PLP.
    "Corbyn may not be very organised, a slick operator or a conventional leader, but he is definitely not in the game for himself." haha you you said he'll do all he can to combat inequality but yet lacks these basics skills, he won't get far. It's all attractive and stuff to be different and not fit the mold but guess what?? most politicians have this mold because it's called "professionalism" they advertise themselves to fit the job. You cannot be unorganised, slickly operative and not be able to lead whilst living in Number 10 and running the UK.

    Honestly what goes on in the minds of you corbynistas? Not much I'm guessing, that's why Corbyn tries attracting you with emojis of himself hahahaha.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zayn008)
    I agree with privatising most sectors but defence? That's the worst idea ever. G4S is disasterous and private defence in America is led full of corruption and inefficiency. It's in the states interest to reduce crime and protect people, it's in the free markets interest to maximise profits. Prehaps some parts of defence could be improved with co-operation in the private sector but in no way should it be down to the free market.

    Even Margaret Thatcher would think you're pathetic for wanting to leave defence to the free market.
    Why should health and education be given to the free market but not defence? Is it not in the state's interests to ensure we have a good education and can get treatment, which are both also fiscal multipliers?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Why should health and education be given to the free market but not defence? Is it not in the state's interests to ensure we have a good education and can get treatment, which are both also fiscal multipliers?
    Because the state must have a monopoly on violence. Jails, courts, police and the army shouldn't be private.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.