Jeremy Corbyn Would Make A Good Prime Minister

Thanks, Pro!++Rebuttal++It's, er, a little sanctimonious to claim that I lied because it was a simple mistake, whereas lies require intent, but I apologise for that misrepresentation. It's not really the basis of the argument I'm making in that case, the IFS's figure on tuition fees is, but I suppose you're correct in this instance..The rebuttal on fees relating to primary school education is nonsensical because the tuition fee raise and therefore the data that I'm using occured in 2011. It's also completely bloody nonsensical to claim that just because people can read and write that they are more likely to go to university. This argument also misses my point, which is that fees mean that the middle class don't crowd out the lower class - because let's face it, the middle class can offer more to universities than the lower class do.My opponent also misses the point which is that the funding gap is just filled at the moment, but were the government to begin paying for it there would be shortfalls, meaning fewer working class students go to university. This is backed by actual evidence.The way in which the effective tax rate will be 70% for some high earners will be that the personal allowance and other tax breaks will be cut and as such even though the maximum rate of tax will be 60% the effective rate will reach 70%. [1][2]> This shows that major economists don't agree with the premise that increased taxation means that wealthy individuals will leave.False. This shows that one major economist thinks that taxation means that some wealthy individuals will leave. This isn't relevant to my larger point, which is that a Corbyn government would create an atmosphere which would be hostile to business, including leaving the single market [3] and other such measures.Regarding the Stiglitz point, this is basically the foundation of most left-wing thought - that spending within the economy is a good thing. However, this isn't terribly relevant to to the motion at hand, which is whether Jeremy Corbyn will be a good PM. It's therefore not a relevant point that you're making here. Note that the source for this assertation comes from a Guardian article about how public spending is important in a time of low growth and austerity is not the correct path - not necessarily that spending is always good. Furthermore, note that Stiglitz states that "As tax revenues go up as a result of growth, and as these expenditures decrease, the government"s fiscal position strengthens"In other words, continued and sustained spending is not sustainable, and neither is overspending of the type that Corbyn would introduce.The argument from authority is fallacious and frankly lazy - to state that simply because two economists agree that spending in moderation sometimes boosts the economy and that sometimes taxes going up doesn't always mean capital flight means that they think that Corbyn would be a good prime minister (the actual topic of this debate). Finally, let's tackle the nationalisation argument you're making.>just as goodThis is a completely unsupported assumption, so let's counter it with some supported statements. In countries where railways have been nationalised, customer satisfaction has gone down a long way. [4] But maybe it's not the case that nationalisation is inherently a bad thing. I've already examined the counter to this in the tuition fees argument in the first round, but I'll state it again - the government cannot and will not spend anywhere near as much on the railways as a private company. This leads to two possible outcomes, neither of which are particularly good things.Outcome 1The government-owned business has to lay off and fire workers to cut costs in order to not go hideously over-budget - or it can borrow excessively, putting itself into debt.Outcome 2The government-owned business has to cut costs on the actual running of the business itself. This means things like running fewer trains, scrapping some of the trains, having less food. This means that consumers get a lower quality of experience.Remember, just because the status quo isn't great doesn't mean the alternative is automatically good. >10% less in factIt seems that you don't realise that there are only two ways in which you can cut prices. One, you can lay off workers and slash their wages or two, you can reduce the customer experience. So either the experience gets better and the price goes up or it gets slightly less good and the price goes down. It is basically not possible to make both wages and customer satisfaction go up by literally any means otherwise it would have already happened. This is because a company which has better value is chosen more. This means that they become dominant, meaning they earn more of a profit. Et cetera. Government ownership does not necessarily make something better. > the last six years while wages have been stagnating prices have risen by 25%. In 2015 Customer Satisfaction was higher than in 2016 The reason that prices have risen is because only 3% of the ticket is actually profit. It's become more expensive to run the railways because there are more people using it. This means your costs go up. Both wages and prices of tickets cannot both go up because a significant part of the tickets is in fact going into the wages of those who work on the railways.> According to a recent You Gov poll 58% of the public were in favour of nationalising the railways compared to 17% who opposed the policyPopular doesn't mean good. This should be obvious. We're not debating whether Jeremy Corbyn's policies are popular. We're debating whether he would be a good PM.Substantative to follow next round, I'm out of characters to make the argument I wanted. R4 will be substantative in which I will contend that Jeremy Corbyn's weakness on anti-Semitism within his party makes him unsuitable for the role of Prime Minister, especially dealing with Israel.R5 will be more rebuttal and summary.1.)http://www.telegraph.co.uk...2.)https://www.theguardian.com...3.)https://www.theguardian.com...4.)http://www.telegraph.co.uk...