Originally posted by divegeester
His "achievement" needs to be considered with considerable sobriety, political competitive context and fiscal realism.
Firstly, well done to him. He singlehandedly took advantage of the Tories complancancy and arrogance.
However, we should acknowledge that the man is in opposition with little chance of obtaining the premiership. He is an ideologu ...[text shortened]... urse.
A cursory glance over the Labour manifesto reveals it as the economic fairytale it is.
Here's a letter signed by over 100 (maybe 129 - I can't be bothered counting) economists backing Corbyn's manifesto and attacking Tory austerity.
What you imagine you can achieve with a cursory glance is hard to envisage but Labour has been engaged in discussions with economists over a number of years and exploring new aproaches based on serious academic research. There has not only been a debate but also frequent arguments, with big names like Pikketty sometimes throwing their dummies out of the pram before stepping back into the conversation.
One thing Labour is NOT DOING under Corbyn is leaning on old ideologies. That is what the Tories and the mass media are doing. And it seems that you, with your cursory glances, are satisfied with your glib, media induced mantras, unable to even engage in the debate beyond a passing slogan.
Fact is that the manifesto is still too "conservative" and modest in its promises. The public is simply too terrified by the Tory lies telling them that a national budget in a country with its own currency is like an old lady's weekly budget. Nonsense of course. Absolutely illiterate claptrap. The reality is that the economy which rescued the banking system with hundred of billions of pounds is not going to have any difficulty absorbing Labour's proposals for productive investment.
Try these numbers for the UK: "Last December, the National Audit Office published a second report into the costs of the bail-out. That report concluded: The scale of the support currently provided to UK banks has fallen from a peak of £955bn to £512bn, but the amount of cash currently borrowed by the government to support banks has risen by £7bn [to a total of £124bn] since December 2009. But the NAO also concluded that costs would continue for years to come. The economist Tim Congdon told the BBC today that the British state will make a profit out of its investment in the banks."
Tell us where that £955bn came from - who did we borrow it from - where was it before we spent it? That's 955 BILLION pounds.
You know nothing. That should make you hestitate before being so opinionated. Sadly not.