Get voting labour, renationalise royal mail!

[claretandblue]

Socialism is great, until you run out of other peoples money.

[Tman]

Doesn't appear to be so great before that happens.
Has there ever been a nominally socialist/Communist/Marxist country where people don't die trying to escape from?
Even that blind old toss-pot Tony Benn had to eventually concede that the Iron Curtain was to keep people in, rather than people from the West out...

[TrueBlueTerrier]

First past the post guarantees a strong and stable government.

So why did we have a coalition and why is the Tories current majority so slim.

Well let start with this fact since 1852 there have been FIVE coalition governments, the WWII is more national wartime coalition, much better than European PR system.

A simple majority is all that's need to form a government, this way time will not be wasted in horse trading as we have seen during Cameron/Clegg coalition negotiations with all the compromises that comes with it. Instead the business of running the country will carry on smoothly.

We had referendum on PR at the insistence of Clegg as his party had the most to gain from this, I'm glad to say the British people voted against it in favour of retaining the FTP.

You said guarantees - thats what I laughed at. Normally if does help form a stable government. Whether it's a strong one is down to the main actors themselves. Blair had a stable government but some would say it wasn't a strong one, at least where America was concerned. It lead, we followed was some of the rhetoric.

[stan_lers]

Has there ever been a nominally socialist/Communist/Marxist country where people don't die trying to escape from?

Except maybe the early years of the USSR, there's never been a pure Communist/Marxist country in history. Countries like North Korea have nothing to do with what Marx wrote about. Very few people are calling for communism in any form in the UK, and Corbyn is definitely not one of them. Socialism and/or the threat of it gave us workers rights, pensions, free education, the NHS, and of the first world countries that have the happiest people, longest lifespans, highest GDP per capita, best rights and freedoms, most of them are centre-left or lean towards socialism.

Corbyn is a social democrat, he's not a Marxist. He doesn't want class war, he wants public spending funded by the richest, which until 2010 was completely normal but thanks to the media is now seen by ordinary people as being Stalinist.

[jetblack]

Meanwhile, in other news, even our very own Tory Chancellor had to praise China's collosal infrastructure investment plans (The Belt and Road) - "I commend President Xi ... for setting in train such a bold and visionary project. This initiative is truly ground-breaking in the scale of its ambition, spanning more than 65 countries, across four continents, with the potential to raise the living standards of 70% of the global population.”

He's alright that Xi, what with his $900 billion spending plans and everything, but by all accounts he's a right commie !!

Still, I spose the 500 million that he's lifted out of poverty aren't complaining too much hey ? Thats 7% of the world population BTW - not bad going for a bloke thats trying to relive the 70's and has Che Guevara posters on his wall. Allegedly.

[Tman]

Except maybe the early years of the USSR, there's never been a pure Communist/Marxist country in history.

That's a debating point used to excuse and separate the present-day followers of Marx etc from the atrocities of the past; there's certainly been enough countries which have described themselves as communist, based their ways on communism or had "Marxist regimes" in place over the decades, but many people have used the same get-out clause as you have. It's worn too thin now.
But then that proves the original point that someone made, namely it hasn't worked and doesn't work, and very soon the "pure Communist/Marxist" (as you call it) principles are subsumed in a sea of secret police, barbed wire and human deprivation.

Corbyn is a social democrat, he's not a Marxist. He doesn't want class war, he wants public spending funded by the richest, which until 2010 was completely normal but thanks to the media is now seen by ordinary people as being Stalinist

.

He's been influenced by Marxism and openly expressed support for it over the years, as has MacDonnell. The campaign manager Andrew Murray brought in by Corbyn was openly supporting Marxism, the BCP, CP (or whatever they're called these days) up to recently.
You must be in denial if you think none of these are nothing but social democrats.

[stan_lers]

Communism is collective ownership, ultimately a classless, moneyless, stateless society. That doesn't describe the USSR, North Korea etc, which are dictatorships and nothing more. It's not a get out clause, it's the truth. Pure communism might not work in reality, but then nobody is calling for it, so that's irrelevant.

Whether or not Corbyn is a communist is irrelevant too. He's not proposing a communist agenda, he's proposing a social democratic one. We're not electing a president, we're electing a party, and the policies of Labour come from across the whole of that party. It's like saying he supports Arsenal so he's going to ban Spurs. He's leader of a party and is bringing together views from across the party, not just his own.

[cloherty1976]

Socialism is great, until you run out of other peoples money.

You can always print some more.

[jetblack]

Socialism is great, until you run out of other peoples money.

The Conservatives, by contrast, never seem to run out of other peoples money :-

[NWpostie]

First past the post guarantees a strong and stable government.

So why did we have a coalition and why is the Tories current majority so slim.

Well let start with this fact since 1852 there have been FIVE coalition governments, the WWII is more national wartime coalition, much better than European PR system.

A simple majority is all that's need to form a government, this way time will not be wasted in horse trading as we have seen during Cameron/Clegg coalition negotiations with all the compromises that comes with it. Instead the business of running the country will carry on smoothly.

We had referendum on PR at the insistence of Clegg as his party had the most to gain from this, I'm glad to say the British people voted against it in favour of retaining the FTP.

You said guarantees - thats what I laughed at. Normally if does help form a stable government. Whether it's a strong one is down to the main actors themselves. Blair had a stable government but some would say it wasn't a strong one, at least where America was concerned. It lead, we followed was some of the rhetoric.

Laugh all you like, it's got to be better than the PR system and perpetual coalition as seen in Europe.

[jetblack]

First Past the Post guarantees that the votes of some (marginal seats) will be worth more than the votes of others (safe seats); it also means that election campaigns are disproportionately aimed at a small minority of middle England seats that hold the balance of power; it means that a sizeable chunk of the electortate will be completely disengaged from the "democratic" process as, to all intents and purposes, their votes are leading to absolutely zero representation in Parliament - which in turn means that the Govt. of the day quite often has absolute power with as little as 22% of the eligible electors vote.

Its a joke. Its undemocratic.

FPTP has been a part the reason for the disillusionment with the democratic process in the UK and subsequent lack of participation. Even if PR were introduced tomorrow it would take quite a while ( and a cultural shift) to overcome the current mallaise IMHO.

But it has to be worth a try - you have to start somewhere.

[yellowbelly]

Is there a precedent for the actual process of renationalisation? - I heard something about bonds being issued on the
news but I was only half listening as I was driving round and I think they were referring to the water companies.....

Would shares would be compulsorarily purchased but at what price? (Or would shares held by employees be viewed
as some sort of workers co-operative ownership and only shares held by non-RM people/institutions be bought back by Govt?).

Would the EU and Govt's of other countries have a problem with UK state ownership of all the overseas postal/parcel companies that RM has hoovered up?

There are, I believe 1,000,000,000 RM shares, at about £4 each that's £4,000,000,000 so is that going to be
realised into hard wonga to shareholders at somewhere between that £4 billion and £0 or Govt. bonds to that
value issued depending on how the Labour Govt. will play it?

[jetblack]

A Labour Government could have mine back for nothing.