Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Stalinest Seumas Milne to be Corbyn's communication and strategy chief watch

Announcements
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Margaret Thatcher was a Pinochet apologist...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    Sounds good to me. It does also require the size of the state to be significantly smaller (which it was at around an 8th of what it is now).
    Wait wait wait. So taxation is 5x more today but the state 8x more today?

    Looks like those economies of scale associated with increased state provision are really paying dividends!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    Margaret Thatcher was a Pinochet apologist...
    Nothing wrong with that.

    Also Pinochet's government killed about 2,000 people which is far less than Castro. To compare that to Stalin apology is just ridiculous.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Wait wait wait. So taxation is 5x more today but the state 8x more today?

    Looks like those economies of scale associated with increased state provision are really paying dividends!
    No, has more to do with more borrowing, because the head of state isn't personally liable for borrowing, and also because the state controls the money supply and can inflate at will.

    Just requires a little bit of thought to figure that out.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    No, has more to do with more borrowing, because the head of state isn't personally liable for borrowing, and also because the state controls the money supply and can inflate at will.

    Just requires a little bit of thought to figure that out.
    Borrowing is fine because we are too big to fail. Borrowing is necessary for the same reason the capital markets are, you need to spend brass to make brass. We do not need to balance the books in fact to do so is indicative of malinvestment.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Borrowing is fine because we are too big to fail. Borrowing is necessary for the same reason the capital markets are, you need to spend brass to make brass. We do not need to balance the books in fact to do so is indicative of malinvestment.
    Its not fine if it is to the extent that it currently is because it means the next generation (I.e. ours) get ruined and forced to pay far more tax than they would actually need to for the "services" that they receive.

    Borrowing on a small scale yes. Capital and infrastructure investment by the state yes. 50% marginal tax rates, extensive inflationary monetary policy, large scale borrowing and accumulating massive unfunded liabilities much of which is to pay for "services" that the state has no place providing and some of which are actively detrimental to society. We don't need a department for women or many of the other ridiculous government positions we have nowadays.

    It'll become clear that this is very unaffordable over the next couple of decades unless a government actually makes serious cuts and does something about the off-sheet liabilities. Surely you can see the problem there?

    Was the Western Roman Empire too big to fail?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Do you not think that much like the fiscal u turn debacle this is an own goal which prevents the opposition from effectively holding the government to account?

    I mean, I don't think you can even blame the right wing media on this one- the guy is pretty controversial.
    Not really to be honest. Didn't seem to harm Cameron too much when he appointed a criminal (Coulson) in the same position. I do find the over reaction funny though.

    To be honest I don't care, there's far more important issues than this one. From the looks of it, Milne has a point in much of what he says even if at times he goes too far.

    I'd say the likes of Ian Duncan smith, and what he's done is far more controversial tbh.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skeptical_john)
    More proof Corbyn is not taking this seriously and probably just wants out of the job as quick as possible. Why else would you appoint a Stalin apologist as your head of comms?

    Here's a taste of Milne's work

    https://shirazsocialist.wordpress.co...sing-millions/
    The Stalin Apologist thing is right wing agitprop. What he was actually doing was challenging the lazy Hitler=Stalin analogy. Even Britain and America's wartime leaders did not think that was the case and you can easily imagine they knew a great deal more about Stalin than we currently do. Also, there is intense controversy both internationally and inside Russia about the nature and extent of Stalin's crimes. Whilst he was undeniably responsible personally for signing death warrants for hundreds of thousands of people and was a mass murderer, there is doubt about the bigger figures attributable to war death, famine, etc. Some historians lay these fully at his door, others less so.

    These nuances are wholly lost on the modern British Right, who hate thoughtful and academic discussion and wish instead to engage only in reactionary smear campaigns and politicised revisions of history to serve their business interests.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    Its not fine if it is to the extent that it currently is because it means the next generation (I.e. ours) get ruined and forced to pay far more tax than they would actually need to for the "services" that they receive.

    Borrowing on a small scale yes. Capital and infrastructure investment by the state yes. 50% marginal tax rates, extensive inflationary monetary policy, large scale borrowing and accumulating massive unfunded liabilities much of which is to pay for "services" that the state has no place providing and some of which are actively detrimental to society. We don't need a department for women or many of the other ridiculous government positions we have nowadays.

    It'll become clear that this is very unaffordable over the next couple of decades unless a government actually makes serious cuts and does something about the off-sheet liabilities. Surely you can see the problem there?

    Was the Western Roman Empire too big to fail?
    Of course but the only reason we have had to borrow constantly in all governments since 1980, and specifically the reason the Labour government had to do PFI and so on is because people will insist on being such big babies about tax. Like we have discussed it's true you don't have to have income tax if you target landowners but you can't protect landowners and have low income tax.

    Rome was too big to fail really, its failure more or less ended civilisation across Western Europe for several centuries, and in some respects you could say we didn't recover for over a millennium. We are far closer linked in to global trade than Rome so if other countries know what's good for them they'll pay any price to keep us afloat. And if we do collapse so does literally everyone else so there's no immediately obvious competitive advantage.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    Apparently it was very similar to the modern welfare state. Their lords looked after them, y'know.
    Provided you agreed to getting yourself killed three times a year in pointless wars you cared nothing about. :lol:

    Anyway, the 'looking after' thing is pretty debatable, feudal serfs had lots of labour and very few perks. In England, even the few they did have, like Common Land, were eventually stolen from them by the nobility. People in 'free' cities were sometimes better off, especially when organised into powerful trade and craft guilds, the early anticipators of trade unions. The situation was somewhat different in England to large areas of the European Holy Roman lands, there seems to have been slightly more leeway for the poor to organise their own wellbeing here. Some provision came from the monastic orders who provided health care and sometimes identified with the issues of the poor and even led revolts. John Ball, a Lollard (kind of an early socialist), almost certainly organised the Peasant's Revolt and was well known for his saying

    " When Adam wove and Eve span
    Who was then a gentleman? "

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ball_(priest)
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 23, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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