Yup. There are a good number of levers that can be pulled. The main issue is supply and cost.
As far as Corbyn s concerned, immediate aim has to be getting him the mandate he needs to prevent this from happening again. The rebel MPs, in declaring that they won’t work for him, are effectively saying that they’d sooner see Tories in. Absolutely true as well. If it comes down to Labour government vs “I told you he was unelectable”, they’ll go for the latter.
That seemed to be Smiths only argument yesterday.
Funny that the man saying Corbyn has no policies and only has slogans appears to be conducting these debates completely on the basis of only one slogan.
“you’re unelectable Jeremy”(in that fucking whiney voice). How often did he say that yesterday? He will repeat and repeat this in every debate in an attempt to put doubt in members minds(and the public through the press repeating it).
Can he see the future or is he just full of shit? I’ll believe him the day he can tell me future lottery numbers. I’ll even consider voting for him if he could(not for long though).
Disagree with pretty much all of this post. Would like to see some substantiation for some of your claims. Just as an example, can you substantiate what you say about McDonnell?
Your other point about maturity of a market making it difficult to change is also nonsense. The medical profession was a complex market before the creation of the NHS, and yet the government of the day was able to nationalise the whole kit and caboodle.
Property is going to be relatively easy to sort out in comparison.
I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree then.
You disagree with substantiating something?
Okay.
This doesn’t help the housing situation really, does it.
It’s almost the complete opposite of what is required. They’re getting direct land subsidies,when they should be getting taxed. Would stop a lot of the land banking that goes on.
No it’s an opinion. Obviously you do think he’s stupid enough to crash the economy, which was a point you haven’t broached.
The only sensible thing to do from an economic point of view is to limit rental increases per year to say 5%. Whatever happens you can’t just crash the housing market and economy, it’s counterproductive as the people that will suffer most are the ones that were paying these rents in the first place. It needed to be implemented before the house prices spiked mid 2000’s.
If you can give me an example of a place that has successfully implemented rent controls which decreased the rate without adversely affecting the economy then I’d be interested to read about it.
Who says he’ll crash the economy, or for that matter, that the economy is working now? The assumption that all is good now is untenable. Outside of financial services, most sectors are in decline, especially those that would provide skilled and stable work.
Even if you use the rather Orwellian definition that seems to constitute success, make and sell stuff forever, we’re doing shite on that front too, globalised out in a race to the bottom. Much of what people earn goes in serving loans or mortgages, and at every step of the way, someone is exploiting your basic needs to make themselves richer because they have facilities that the lender does not, specifically the ability to create money out of nothing.
If those are the people that end up losing out, I really don’t have an issue with it.
What you’re talking about is doing away with a capitalist society and economy which is not going to happen.
What you don’t seem to get is that if the rich miss out, then that is passed down to the poor at an amplified rate.
I’m not talking about the end of capitalism. I’m simply talking about drawing back its scope, taking profit motive out of many sectors altogether, and running planned economies in areas where the free market, in its infinite wisdom, has failed to address.
I think we can reasonably say that the free market hasn’t been a decent mechanism to ensure that people are housed, have decent employment opportunities and employment rights. The free market is something of a misnomer anyway. With a level playing field, the idea kind of works, but we’re way past that point. We’re now dealing with multinationals with huge financial resources and worldwide reach.
I think it provides comfort for rightwingers to see the market as the ultimate arbiter, the chaotic maelstrom from which the strong will emerge.
The market is indifferent, impartial and detached, right?
The reality is that the free market is based just as much on planned economy principles. When a firm decides to allocate vast resources to establish a location, they’re planning an economy. They’re just planning for that economy to be of primary benefit to them. South America is littered with examples of ecological and financial ruin being visited on countries, deliberately so, at great profit to Western corporations.
I’m not asserting that there is some over-arching scheme or that there is not competition between corporate behemoths. However, when you’re talking about organisations of this size and reach, it doesn’t really matter. Many of them are so large that they can unilaterally direct huge resources into achieving their plans.
Loads of the economy is already planned. It’s not about destroying capitalism. It’s about asking who gets to make those plans, and for what purpose.
Trotskyists and Nazis all in the same week.
Looks like even Billy Bragg has now suggested that Corbyn is heading in the wrong direction for the electorate…that could be a blow.
Bang goes his Leftfield gig. I might even eject him from my fan club.
It would appear Mr Bragg has been misquoted by Murdoch paper.
I will ask him this weekend 
Surely not?. Mr Murdoch is a paragon of virtue and his media outlets are a beacon of truth and honesty in an otherwise dank and dismal world…
Calling Billy Bragg left wing is like calling Anthony Wedgewood Benn left wing.
Mr Benn was the best thing to happen to the Tory party in the 60/70/80’s as he demonstrated that even going through the stage door you could not change your spots. Once a Tory always a Tory. He diverted what would have been labour support towards the liberals due to his hard left wing views. which IMO I dont think he really had was just doing it for effect but the minor masses believed him.
Not… (for the avoidance of doubt)