Would Labour turn this country into a communist state?

I was trying to have an erudite discussion on political ideologies which is what I thought this was about. (Sigh)

I quote part of the O/P, " I have been dipping in and out of the anti Corbyn thread and I find a persistent theme is etc"

A thread about a thread

Oh, the naivete of those who think it couldn't happen here. That is the best way of ensuring it happens.

We never thought a rightwing neo-liberal conservative government would be elected and re-elected in the UK, but we got one.

So how do you think a labour government could turn the UK communist, monica?

I quote part of the O/P, " I have been dipping in and out of the anti Corbyn thread and I find a persistent theme is etc"

A thread about a thread

Well, I didn't want to derail the anti Corbyn thread so I thought I'd start a new one because I genuinely wanted to find out what posters actually mean't by 'communism' and how they thought a Corbyn led government could take us too far down the 'communist' path

Is taking a theme from another thread and starting a completely new thread on it against the Gnet rules?

Another reminder to please air your views without belittling those of anyone else.

Are you serious Cari? So may we now report anyone who belittles the views any one of us expresses?

It can't be, Maizie.
If it was, the Corbyn/ Momentum thread would not have been allowed.

Well, it did get a warning at one point.

Those who read the Sun or the Mail will be most worried about communism. Those publications have conflated socialism and communism since long before the War.
And some people do find it difficult to learn there is a major difference,

Those publications have conflated socialism and communism since long before the War.

Which is why I was trying to get people to explain what they, personally, understood by 'communism'. How can a topic be meaningfully discussed if the participants have completely different understandings of key terms.

The same way a moderate middle of the road conservative part became a rught wing government, tiny step by tiny step, infiltration by 5th columnists.

Just the same old ways it has always happened.

But it hasn't always happened. It has happened very rarely.
How many countries have been/are communist?
That's the same way that people try and persuade us that we have to have nuclear weapons because otherwise we will be nuked, when only nine countries have nuclear weapons.
It's the politics of fear.

The answer to the OP's question is no.

Just because they quite rightly want to deal with the profit-making by companies running aspects of our public services, it does not follow that they want a communist state - or that they could achieve that, were it to be what they want.

But it isn't illegal to be extreme right or left, MOnica, is it? Surely it just reflects the full range of political opinion across the country?

I do agree that there seem to be moves afoot in the party of government to try and circumvent our constitution and Parliamentary sovereignty but I think they are coming under close scrutiny. And I think that should the same 'moves' be attempted under a Labour government they would come under the same scrutiny.

In response to your comments lemongrove

...but free university expenses can never happen without plunging the country ito massive debt... Why would we be plunged into massive debt? Blocking tax avoidance loopholes would increase exchequer income as would the income tax paid by those employed by/as a result of government funded building schemes.

...As far as I am aware we already have the right to have faith or no faith without intimidation ( there are laws to protect us)... There may be laws to protect us but they are not used as often as they could be. However, I was talking about a well integrated society were differences are celebrated.

...There are also many,many good schools... There are also many, many failing schools. All schools should be good schools regardless of catchment area. I am aware this will cost money and refer you to the answer I gave earlier regarding university education.

...There are also many government funded construction projects and help for small businesses in place... There need to be a lot more funded projects which should be spread across the country and should be funded directly and not via PFI. Companies employed to manage such works should be scrutinised to ensure that the Carillion fiasco doesn't happen again.

Just a slight aside. Extremes are one of the reasons why I would like PR. It is difficult to say how many seats the extremes would get by I would guess it would only be one or two each, if they were lucky. This would show just what proportion of the population were actually interested in them and allow for coalitions of the left, right or over the two where we could see the make-up. For instance, how much easier it would have been for the "Conservatives" not to have to deal with their far-right but perhaps had chosen to make a government with a more centrist party.

Vampire I would add to your comment about ...but free university expenses can never happen without plunging the country ito massive debt...

Tax or government borrowing has to be used to pay for the student "loans" in the first place. Those loans are repaid by what is very much a tax; it is just that it is only paid by one section of society. Then there is quite a large portion that cannot be repaid by these tax payers so it had to be covered from the general tax take. This taxing of education is grossly unfair but I cannot see how it would be more expensive to the country to spread the tax burden and pay it all out of the general tax take. Same amount of money - same tax pot.

...There are also many government funded construction projects and help for small businesses in place...

These are certainly not spread evenly across the country. There is a north south divide on investment and an east west one.

Tax or government borrowing has to be used to pay for the student "loans" in the first place. Those loans are repaid by what is very much a tax; it is just that it is only paid by one section of society. Then there is quite a large portion that cannot be repaid by these tax payers so it had to be covered from the general tax take.

But not only are the students repaying their loans but if they're in employment (which, of course, they would be if they're repaying the loan) they are also paying income tax, NIC and VAT on non-food purchases and services. So the money's coming back one way or another.

So they're paying the loan back twice....once directly and again through their taxes. That doesn't seem fair. Who else pays a debt off twice?

I read somewhere that the loan system actually has cost the government more as a high % of students never repay the loan, and it has seem the rise of excessive spending in universities.

Exactly Maizie. The money paying for the university courses is coming out of the "tax" system one way or another. Calling it a loan just links that tax to one specific group.

Sorry, should have said - just links a proportion of the required tax take to one specific group.

Well, vq, I suppose they're paying what they would have paid had they not gone to uni, plus the loan. So not really 'twice'.

I have never approved of huge tuition fees for uni students. We should be investing in our future, not saddling it with huge debt.

Maizie I never said it was