Re: The last general election results ...
@ codejunky "That sounds like a lot of hope. So he wont try to make the changes within the 5 years he is in power if he was to be elected?"
Of course he'll try to make changes but everything has to get through parliament and he won't want a vote of no confidence. I think he's canny enough to know he's got to strike a balance. He's been in politics for a long time now. Very big changes take years to fully implement anyway. A case in point is all these internet controls the current government (and civil service) seem so desperate to rush through. Yes, they're getting them, but they're taking many years. So when you say he'll "trash the country", it just sounds like scaremongering to me.
Even if I'm wrong, if we have a recession, to many that would still be a price worth paying in the short term to restore our public services and support network back to their former glory for the longer term. In the last recession no such improvements took place. I sense that you perhaps don't care about that and would be happier with the status quo. The problem I have is that there really is no status quo. The current right won't ever stop squeezing the working and middle classes and cutting back public services so long as they can keep getting away with it. That's why we need a few years of the opposite to restore some level of sanity and balance to this system.
"As for trash the economy- Venezuela."
Ah yes the standard mainstream media one word comeback. From what I understand their policies were arguably too extreme, poorly implemented and they were too reliant on oil wealth with the subsequent consequences when that crashed. Apparently they were also dealing with a lack of housing supply - something our government are actively perpetuating and Corbyn aims to reverse.
"That all? No peoples quantitative easing? No rent controls? No building trident to please the unions but not arm it to please his followers? No nationalising?"
If rent controls can deflate the monstrous housing bubble then I say bring it on! And many, many people in this country would agree with me. Yes it will be painful for some but others have been enduring pain for the best part of 20 years. There's no way JC would implement full disarmament. He speaks openly about his pacifistic ideals but he's also pragmatic. He understands the need to compromise. Nationalizing I've already covered. Regarding people's QE, I'm not even sure what you're talking about but if it's something that would get just a bit of the wealth back to the middle and working classes then maybe it's something worth considering.
"Their 'ideas' have also been tried and failed. The outcome being fairly well known."
I've pretty much covered this. Your assumption is they will implement far left socialism and you look to other attempts at that for your examples of failure. My own expectation and hope is rather that they will restore the climate in this country back a bit more to how it was towards the end of the last century before the madness of the housing and credit bubbles, zero hours contracts and social benefits being cut off. I'm willing to accept that a lot of what happened was global but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be repaired here.
"Yes they can, they could be in government hands. Why do they cost so much for dirty, cramped and unreliable? Because people will pay for it."
I would argue train prices must be pretty inelastic because there's something of a captive market. When you travel by train in this country you typically do it because you can't find another viable option. When someone can't drive to a destination, for many places in this country the train's all they've got and it's not like they can choose a competitor to get a cheaper price. It's a monopoly. Yes I know a nationalized service would be a monopoly too but it wouldn't be motivated by profit to the extent the private sector is.
"There is a fixed amount of track and the state of the track is not in private hands so why is the gov not adding more track and maintaining it better?"
Perhaps because the current government are not interested in investing wealth in improving public services? There's HS2 but that whole project just seems totally irrational to me (when you consider cutting edge rail technology it's not even such a great improvement in speed). You've just yourself suggested a better use for the money.
"Why do public services tend to be accused of underinvestment when it is run by the utopia of big gov? Because the gov wants voters which means big and shiny (think of any of those projects?), things that can be seen. Maintenance is low on that list."
Sadly, yes. In a way that's symptomatic of the dishonesty that the public now perceive in many politicians. Corbyn on the other hand comes across as genuinely saying what he believes and wanting to actually help people. And that in itself is a refreshing change from those that are hellbent only on concentrating power with themselves and only the very largest multinational businesses.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
