The Dome.

But again that's not my point.

Blaming banks isn't going to reduce the deficit. Neither is any sort of Robin Hood tax which I'm waiting for him to propose. Neither is buying back prviously public assets, which is only possible in his socialist utopia where he plans to have the BoE create more money for this purpose.

Nick earlier on you asked why Corbyn is being criticised for promoting 1970's style policies.

Surely even you can see that it's a throwback to recommend re-nationalising the railways and energy companies without outlining the financial details of how we could afford it?

Similarly he has suggested re-opening the South wales coal mines to reduce unemployment whilst also promoting greener energy production?

That smacks of 1970's style politics to me.

New Labour also encouraged the NHS to appoint middle managers to monitor waiting lists rather than appointing actual doctors and nurses to reduce the waiting lists.

If I remember rightly in the 80s and early 90s, so did the Conservative party, claiming exactly the same reason that New Labour did, to provide efficiency and effective resource management.

Difference is maybe more that the conservative government at the time sold off hospitals to do so (actually thinking about it, New Labour also did that).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Banks also created a lot of wealth in the first place. Financial services contributed 9.6% of our GDP in 2011, and that was in the middle of the crash. It's very easy and fashionable to bash the banks, they do actually do some good work otherwise the world wouldn't see us as the financial capital of the world.

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

No doubt that banks do some good, but unregulated they do a s*** more harm.

It all went to pot when we all stopped getting a pay packet and were forced to use banks.

Some of them also worked out lol. The DTI, DECC, HMCE and IR (later HMRC), Home Office, MoJ, Small Government office, Treasury Office all spring to mind, plus a lot of MOD. One of the big problems that was apparent by 2000 is that government IT infrastructure was facing being about 10 years behind the curve (in 2001, the County Court systems were still functioning on a system that used word perfect 3.1).

A few project failed, notably the NHS, LIBRA (Magistrates Courts), Eborders and CSA were the big ones, but during the period of the last labour government almost all of the IT infrastructure of the Government was entirely revamped. In many cases the costs of failure were also borne by implementing companies (BT and Fujitsu for the NHS) and EDS for the CSA.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

These can have draw backs, as it often directs funding down avenues with profitable returns, which in cases of research and development, can be problematic. It also engenders waste, where its more profitable to throw something away, rather than fix / repair / give it away.

Free Market forces also resulted in offshoring of jobs, as well as the influx of EU Migration, as companies selected to utilize cheap migrant labour from the EU, rather than nationals (more expensive).

The ideology of Free Market economics also failed to deliver on the supposed 'Trickle Down' effect, and rather than actually being free, tends to result in a disproportionate distribution of wealth produced, as well as promoting an ethic of profit = good, resulting in a number of questionable practices, especially internationally, such as Free Trade Zones, Child Labour, Exploitative working practices etc as well as corruption of nations by corporations, especially in the third and second world.

The Market isn't really free at all, it owned by those who possess the wealth, who have the power to demand that others, which has seen suppliers being squeezed by large conglomerates and national interests being influenced by the desires of big business practices (Such as how the Supermarkets got New Labour to restructure the idea of Monopolies).

Its also destroying small businesses in the UK, as large companies build out of town business parks and enter into the remaining high street trade.

Whilst socialism in terms of the Soviets is a failed experiment, Free Market economics is in no way liberated us or set individuals free, if anything its made us more enslaved to debt, such as student loans and mortgages, and left us all paying higher prices.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Well they spent money on two aircraft carriers, where the planes they brought off America were not suitable for the ships so they had to modify the planes. We certainly didn't see a massive improvement in weaponary in the field until we'd lost a lot of people.
The welfare state was bloated, of that there is absolutely no doubt. Borders were deliberately abandoned and I stand by the amount of money given to the E.U..

It is in the interests of companies to develop new products that people want so they do research and develop. If they produce goods that do not last, people will stop buying them. If they produce a new model of something that people prefer, they will buy it and perhaps give their old model to someone who wants it. Contrast this with the one model of car available in Soviet Russia, the empty shelves and other shelves stacked with goods nobody wants – produced because some 5 years plan said people would want them.

I would not describe uncontrolled immigration as free market. It is a political policy – another great ‘plan’ of the pseudo-socialist EU. It works against what would be normal free market activity if the workforce were indigenous, organised and received decent wages. I do agree that the Capitalists do take advantage of this and exploit the cheap labour, the answer is to stop uncontrolled immigration.

I think ‘trickle down’ works compared to socialist countries, peoples’ standard of living in general gets better over the years in Capitalist countries – the reverse in Socialist countries.

Certainly monopolies are a problems and cartels and there is a role for governments to mitigate their effect. However, it is still possible for new enterprises to challenge monopolies; look how Dyson shook up the vacuum cleaner market, how Betfair challenged the big bookies, peer to peer lending taking business from the banks. In Socialist economies the only choice you have is the state offering – usually inefficient and poor quality.

Small businesses such as a greengrocers can be destroyed by a supermarket opening nearby. But the good ones find a niche and provide a service and quality that the supermarket cannot match. The state run greengrocers of course would sell stale goods, have shortages and not really give a damn about customer service or what the customer wants.

People in Capitalist countries choose to take out a student loan or a mortgage – they can choose to buy their own property. People in Socialist Russia were are allocated a flat in a concrete tower block – those that were not literally enslaved, of course, in some forced labour camp.

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler