Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The star who plays a LAB MP in tonight’s new BBC political thr

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited February 12 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The star who plays a LAB MP in tonight’s new BBC political thriller right is worried about state of the party

David Mars is a Labour MP worried about the state of his party and at odds with his leader. Described as a “frustrated but hard-working member of the shadow cabinet” the central character in tonight’s BBC2 thriller Collateral “despairs at the state of the Labour Party and many of its policies .. he’s not afraid to be outspoken and on more than one occasion he finds himself in hot water with the party leader.”

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,304
    This was David Cowling's observation on the Stephen Bush article

    The Westminster graveyard is littered with the corpses of party leaders who claimed it would be “alright on election night”. As increasing numbers of people are observing, if Labour cannot put the Conservatives on the canvas when Mrs May is leading them, then what chance will they have against another Conservative leader? Labour has been lucky that everyone’s attention has been on Conservative woes. That luck will not last forever.”

  • I like the fact John Simm’s character has the surname (Life on) Mars.

    If he had the surname ‘Master’ that would have caused another geekgasm.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,334

    I like the fact John Simm’s character has the surname (Life on) Mars.

    If he had the surname ‘Master’ that would have caused another geekgasm.

    When he was young, presumably he would have been Master Mars.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,555
    Why aren't Labour attacking the Conservatives' disarray over Brexit much more vigorously? They don't need a position on Brexit to do this, simply pointing to the disarray would be enough.

    Also, I think it's a serious blunder for Labour to claim renationalisation would be free, even if they can produce sums to support their position. The public is very cynical. It would be more easily convinced if Labour claimed that there was a meaningful cost, but that cost was worthwhile. Trying to persuade the public that there's such a thing as a free lunch, particularly if - as Labour is - you're a party with a mediocre at best reputation for prudence with public finances, is much harder. It makes Labour look fiscally irresponsible again.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,334
    " What more could Team Corbyn be doing at the moment? The answer, rather boringly, is Not Much."

    Really?

    Spectacular complacency.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 16,995

    " What more could Team Corbyn be doing at the moment? The answer, rather boringly, is Not Much."

    Really?

    Spectacular complacency.

    Perhaps some some policies ?
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 4,530
    There is a lot in the "time is on Labour's side" argument. Whatever Brexit May produces is very unlikely to get a net favourable rating, mainly because even if it is a good brexit that won't be clear for some time, so it will be assessed on presentation rather than substance. TMay's presentation ... On housing and on the NHS, things are getting worse at a faster rate than they can be made better - houses take time to deliver, and the main enemy of the NHS is the inexorable rise year on year in the number of 65+ year olds in the population.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,543
    edited February 12
    Even Don Brind is getting onside...

    Nevertheless, the housing crisis has probably slowed the typical tendency for the middle aged to switch toward the Tories, so on that he has a point.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 20,010

    I'm not sure that Labour can count on things getting worse for under 45's over the next four years. If the Labour market remains tight, and immigration from Eastern Europe falls, then wages will probably rise in real terms; and housebuilding is now running at a 20 year high.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,335

    Why aren't Labour attacking the Conservatives' disarray over Brexit much more vigorously? They don't need a position on Brexit to do this, simply pointing to the disarray would be enough.

    Also, I think it's a serious blunder for Labour to claim renationalisation would be free, even if they can produce sums to support their position. The public is very cynical. It would be more easily convinced if Labour claimed that there was a meaningful cost, but that cost was worthwhile. Trying to persuade the public that there's such a thing as a free lunch, particularly if - as Labour is - you're a party with a mediocre at best reputation for prudence with public finances, is much harder. It makes Labour look fiscally irresponsible again.

    Agree on both points.

    The idea that nationalisation would not cost taxpayers anything is just ludicrous.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,368
    What can Team Corbyn do? Sack Corbyn, get rid of Momentum and the loon left. That'd be a start.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 11,574
    edited February 12

    Why aren't Labour attacking the Conservatives' disarray over Brexit much more vigorously? They don't need a position on Brexit to do this, simply pointing to the disarray would be enough.

    Also, I think it's a serious blunder for Labour to claim renationalisation would be free, even if they can produce sums to support their position. The public is very cynical. It would be more easily convinced if Labour claimed that there was a meaningful cost, but that cost was worthwhile. Trying to persuade the public that there's such a thing as a free lunch, particularly if - as Labour is - you're a party with a mediocre at best reputation for prudence with public finances, is much harder. It makes Labour look fiscally irresponsible again.

    McDonnell's assertion that his renationalisation is free holes his credibility below the waterline.

    There was also a suggestion that labour will provide free internet access for all.

    Corbyn and McDonnell will never win middle England and hence they will not see power
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 18,494
    Couldn't agree more. Keep the feet up, the flat cap on (at least when north of Watford) and the pipe and slippers to hand. What could possibly go wrong?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 18,494
    Has @Cyclefree dropped off a business card at Barclays? Her informal logo seems entirely apposite:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,335
    IanB2 said:

    Even Don Brind is getting onside...

    Nevertheless, the housing crisis has probably slowed the typical tendency for the middle aged to switch toward the Tories, so on that he has a point.

    True. But what are Labour's policies to make it easier for people to own their own homes at a younger age?
  • Oxfam's deputy chief executive has resigned
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 18,494
    Cyclefree said:

    IanB2 said:

    Even Don Brind is getting onside...

    Nevertheless, the housing crisis has probably slowed the typical tendency for the middle aged to switch toward the Tories, so on that he has a point.

    True. But what are Labour's policies to make it easier for people to own their own homes at a younger age?
    And grow more Tories? Why would they want to do that?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 11,574
    edited February 12
    Cyclefree said:

    IanB2 said:

    Even Don Brind is getting onside...

    Nevertheless, the housing crisis has probably slowed the typical tendency for the middle aged to switch toward the Tories, so on that he has a point.

    True. But what are Labour's policies to make it easier for people to own their own homes at a younger age?
    Apparently take land from land owners at pre planning prices
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,300
    What a waste of money.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 3,881
    Both main parties seem to be totally mad regarding economic basics
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 18,494

    Oxfam's deputy chief executive has resigned

    Not sure that is enough. But it is a start.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 16,116
    Ishmael_Z said:

    There is a lot in the "time is on Labour's side" argument. Whatever Brexit May produces is very unlikely to get a net favourable rating, mainly because even if it is a good brexit that won't be clear for some time.....

    But if the world continues spinning, the sun keeps rising, the tides come in and out - that will come as a blessed relief as against the worst of the Remainer predictions. One of the reasons I am so sanguine about Brexit. Brexit won't change a whole heap, but the people will have jerked the choke chain of the political class. They will have been listened to. That will probably satisfy most.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 16,116
    Interesting broadside by the advertisers against social media....

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43032241
  • Both main parties seem to be totally mad regarding economic basics

    You mean Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell in your reference to both parties !!!
  • DavidL said:

    Oxfam's deputy chief executive has resigned

    Not sure that is enough. But it is a start.
    Criminal charges are needed
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 16,995

    Oxfam's deputy chief executive has resigned

    Disgraceful - won't she "think of the negative impact on donations" (c) this morning's thread.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,335
    DavidL said:

    Has @Cyclefree dropped off a business card at Barclays? Her informal logo seems entirely apposite:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business

    They are on my list.........
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 18,494

    DavidL said:

    Oxfam's deputy chief executive has resigned

    Not sure that is enough. But it is a start.
    Criminal charges are needed
    If there was indeed a crime as opposed to moral turpitude. But those who thought it a good idea to hide moral turpitude for the good of the brand must go.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,480
    Cyclefree said:

    Why aren't Labour attacking the Conservatives' disarray over Brexit much more vigorously? They don't need a position on Brexit to do this, simply pointing to the disarray would be enough.

    Also, I think it's a serious blunder for Labour to claim renationalisation would be free, even if they can produce sums to support their position. The public is very cynical. It would be more easily convinced if Labour claimed that there was a meaningful cost, but that cost was worthwhile. Trying to persuade the public that there's such a thing as a free lunch, particularly if - as Labour is - you're a party with a mediocre at best reputation for prudence with public finances, is much harder. It makes Labour look fiscally irresponsible again.

    Agree on both points.

    The idea that nationalisation would not cost taxpayers anything is just ludicrous.
    Even more ludicrous is the thought that such a line would persuade someone to change their vote from blue to red, although it might well work the other way round.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,335
    DavidL said:

    Oxfam's deputy chief executive has resigned

    Not sure that is enough. But it is a start.

    I am more cynical. They are often a convenient way of being seen to do something without actually doing anything effective to find out what happened, why and what needs to be done to diminish the chances of it happening again.
  • TGOHF said:

    Oxfam's deputy chief executive has resigned

    Disgraceful - won't she "think of the negative impact on donations" (c) this morning's thread.
    Oxfam have trashed their brand and I feel sorry for all those working in Oxfam shops who may well be on the frontline of public anger (quite unfairly)
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 18,467
    Off-topic:

    My son is watching 'Frozen', and he just asked me why ice was slippery. I said it was because part of the ice melts, and forms a very thin layer of liquid that is slippery. He then asked why it melts, and I replied 'pressure'

    It turns out I was wrong, and it's much more complex:
    http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/2013/04/what-causes-ice-to-be-slippery/
    https://www.livescience.com/32507-why-is-ice-slippery.html
    http://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/1.2169444

    It's quite amazing that we still cannot fully answer 'why is ice slippery?'

    Not that it matters when you're trying to get from your front door to the car across some sheet ice ...
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 3,881

    Both main parties seem to be totally mad regarding economic basics

    You mean Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell in your reference to both parties !!!
    No. Tories and Labour. Paraphrasing for brevity.....

    Tories - "We can erect trade barriers with a major trading partner and it will have no effect. We can also make up any shortfall from trading with rich economies by trading with poor economies who cannot afford our products"

    Labour - "We can take whatever we want without paying and the economy will be boosted"
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 2,707

    Both main parties seem to be totally mad regarding economic basics

    You mean Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell in your reference to both parties !!!
    Cheer up BigG it's not all bad news https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/12/rupert-murdoch-pledge-keep-sky-news-independent-fox-takeover
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 16,719
    edited February 12
    It will be interesting to see what Theresa May says about Russia in her Munich speech.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/russias-anti-eu-tweets-eclipsed-leave-campaign-8q6sr0hgm

    Anti-EU articles published by Russian media outlets had four times more social media impact before the Brexit vote than the official Leave campaigns, analysis suggests.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,335

    Cyclefree said:

    Why aren't Labour attacking the Conservatives' disarray over Brexit much more vigorously? They don't need a position on Brexit to do this, simply pointing to the disarray would be enough.

    Also, I think it's a serious blunder for Labour to claim renationalisation would be free, even if they can produce sums to support their position. The public is very cynical. It would be more easily convinced if Labour claimed that there was a meaningful cost, but that cost was worthwhile. Trying to persuade the public that there's such a thing as a free lunch, particularly if - as Labour is - you're a party with a mediocre at best reputation for prudence with public finances, is much harder. It makes Labour look fiscally irresponsible again.

    Agree on both points.

    The idea that nationalisation would not cost taxpayers anything is just ludicrous.
    Even more ludicrous is the thought that such a line would persuade someone to change their vote from blue to red, although it might well work the other way round.
    Of course nationalisation without compensation would not cost anything, at least initially (other than the hit to pension funds and Britain's economic reputation). But it would face challenge in the courts. So it would be very good news indeed for the legal profession.

    It's an ill wind ..... :)
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Oxfam's deputy chief executive has resigned

    Not sure that is enough. But it is a start.
    Criminal charges are needed
    If there was indeed a crime as opposed to moral turpitude. But those who thought it a good idea to hide moral turpitude for the good of the brand must go.
    Prostitution in Haiti is a crime so those alleged to have been involved should have been reported to the police for consideration of prosecution
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 17,646
    John McDonnell has made a splendid contribution to reminding voters that Labour's plans are barmy, with his bizarre verbal gymnastics trying to claim that issuing a bond is not borrowing. I'm not sure whether we should be more worried about whether he believes this nonsense or doesn't believe it, but either way I think voters aren't so dumb; they may not be experts in economics and finance, but they do know that money doesn't grow on trees.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,006
    Labour is in dire trouble.

    It has a dreadful leader who if he stays in post will destroy the Labour party.

    What makes the situation worse is that many have interpreted last year's election result as a vindication of Corbyn and the hard left.

    It wasnt. Not only was it another defeat, and in terms of seats as bad as 2010's, but also it was also a better than the expected meltdown in spite of and not because of Corbyn.

    All the omens are in place for the catastrophe to come including the latest polls which even at the low point in Tory performance have Labour 3 or 4 points behind.

    But what makes the situation for Labour particularly dire is that the leadership team is so abysmally incompetent and ideologically extreme, that it would be actually be worse in the long term if a miracle occurred and they got into power. The resulting chaos would toxify Labour so badly that it would pave the way for a generation of Tory rule. It would be Winter of Discontent propaganda for Tory PPBs for decades "Do you remember the government of Jeremy Corbyn?" He will let the young down so badly that it will drive them into the hands of other parties or of politics altogether for the forseeable future.

    Labour is gradually being taken over by the old Militant of the 1980s rebranded as Momentum. It is becoming an intolerant extreme nasty stain on our national life. Millions like me who voted for Labour instinctively are now repelled and disgusted by it.
  • Both main parties seem to be totally mad regarding economic basics

    You mean Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell in your reference to both parties !!!
    No. Tories and Labour. Paraphrasing for brevity.....

    Tories - "We can erect trade barriers with a major trading partner and it will have no effect. We can also make up any shortfall from trading with rich economies by trading with poor economies who cannot afford our products"

    Labour - "We can take whatever we want without paying and the economy will be boosted"
    I was joking !!
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,335

    Both main parties seem to be totally mad regarding economic basics

    You mean Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell in your reference to both parties !!!
    No. Tories and Labour. Paraphrasing for brevity.....

    Tories - "We can erect trade barriers with a major trading partner and it will have no effect. We can also make up any shortfall from trading with rich economies by trading with poor economies who cannot afford our products"

    Labour - "We can take whatever we want without paying and the economy will be boosted"
    Yup. The Tories are trashing their brand. Labour are merely reinforcing theirs.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,300

    It will be interesting to see what Theresa May says about Russia in her Munich speech.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/russias-anti-eu-tweets-eclipsed-leave-campaign-8q6sr0hgm

    Anti-EU articles published by Russian media outlets had four times more social media impact before the Brexit vote than the official Leave campaigns, analysis suggests.

    That it's a free press?
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,480
    Cyclefree said:

    IanB2 said:

    Even Don Brind is getting onside...

    Nevertheless, the housing crisis has probably slowed the typical tendency for the middle aged to switch toward the Tories, so on that he has a point.

    True. But what are Labour's policies to make it easier for people to own their own homes at a younger age?
    That's tricky. Cheaper houses is a great line for those who don't own a house, not so good for those who do. I would suggest that the former would look quite red and the latter quite blue. Maggie's core strategy worked for her until hubris did for her; what has changed?
  • Yorkcity said:

    Both main parties seem to be totally mad regarding economic basics

    You mean Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell in your reference to both parties !!!
    Cheer up BigG it's not all bad news https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/12/rupert-murdoch-pledge-keep-sky-news-independent-fox-takeover
    Actually Murdoch losing influence over Sky News would be a good thing but the wider problem for Sky News is if Disney decide tgey do not want to take on a news media that is losing money
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 18,494

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Oxfam's deputy chief executive has resigned

    Not sure that is enough. But it is a start.
    Criminal charges are needed
    If there was indeed a crime as opposed to moral turpitude. But those who thought it a good idea to hide moral turpitude for the good of the brand must go.
    Prostitution in Haiti is a crime so those alleged to have been involved should have been reported to the police for consideration of prosecution
    I thought it wasn't unless they were underage. But it is well outside my jurisdiction!
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 16,719

    Cyclefree said:

    IanB2 said:

    Even Don Brind is getting onside...

    Nevertheless, the housing crisis has probably slowed the typical tendency for the middle aged to switch toward the Tories, so on that he has a point.

    True. But what are Labour's policies to make it easier for people to own their own homes at a younger age?
    That's tricky. Cheaper houses is a great line for those who don't own a house, not so good for those who do. I would suggest that the former would look quite red and the latter quite blue. Maggie's core strategy worked for her until hubris did for her; what has changed?
    Perhaps they could paraphrase Harold Wilson: "Making houses more affordable for young people does not mean that the roof over your head has been devalued."
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Oxfam's deputy chief executive has resigned

    Not sure that is enough. But it is a start.
    Criminal charges are needed
    If there was indeed a crime as opposed to moral turpitude. But those who thought it a good idea to hide moral turpitude for the good of the brand must go.
    Prostitution in Haiti is a crime so those alleged to have been involved should have been reported to the police for consideration of prosecution
    I thought it wasn't unless they were underage. But it is well outside my jurisdiction!
    The outcry against Oxfam and aid agencies is getting a huge airing on the media just now and it is not a pretty sight
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,527
    RobD said:

    It will be interesting to see what Theresa May says about Russia in her Munich speech.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/russias-anti-eu-tweets-eclipsed-leave-campaign-8q6sr0hgm

    Anti-EU articles published by Russian media outlets had four times more social media impact before the Brexit vote than the official Leave campaigns, analysis suggests.

    That it's a free press?
    Do we want to encourage Russian propaganda?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 16,116

    Cyclefree said:

    Why aren't Labour attacking the Conservatives' disarray over Brexit much more vigorously? They don't need a position on Brexit to do this, simply pointing to the disarray would be enough.

    Also, I think it's a serious blunder for Labour to claim renationalisation would be free, even if they can produce sums to support their position. The public is very cynical. It would be more easily convinced if Labour claimed that there was a meaningful cost, but that cost was worthwhile. Trying to persuade the public that there's such a thing as a free lunch, particularly if - as Labour is - you're a party with a mediocre at best reputation for prudence with public finances, is much harder. It makes Labour look fiscally irresponsible again.

    Agree on both points.

    The idea that nationalisation would not cost taxpayers anything is just ludicrous.
    Even more ludicrous is the thought that such a line would persuade someone to change their vote from blue to red, although it might well work the other way round.
    You'd think Labour were on 22%, going for a core vote strategy....

    Maybe next time, they will be.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 2,707

    John McDonnell has made a splendid contribution to reminding voters that Labour's plans are barmy, with his bizarre verbal gymnastics trying to claim that issuing a bond is not borrowing. I'm not sure whether we should be more worried about whether he believes this nonsense or doesn't believe it, but either way I think voters aren't so dumb; they may not be experts in economics and finance, but they do know that money doesn't grow on trees.

    I think many would disagree . As the money does get printed when required.I would believe you if it was possible for the B of e to go bust.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,480
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Why aren't Labour attacking the Conservatives' disarray over Brexit much more vigorously? They don't need a position on Brexit to do this, simply pointing to the disarray would be enough.

    Also, I think it's a serious blunder for Labour to claim renationalisation would be free, even if they can produce sums to support their position. The public is very cynical. It would be more easily convinced if Labour claimed that there was a meaningful cost, but that cost was worthwhile. Trying to persuade the public that there's such a thing as a free lunch, particularly if - as Labour is - you're a party with a mediocre at best reputation for prudence with public finances, is much harder. It makes Labour look fiscally irresponsible again.

    Agree on both points.

    The idea that nationalisation would not cost taxpayers anything is just ludicrous.
    Even more ludicrous is the thought that such a line would persuade someone to change their vote from blue to red, although it might well work the other way round.
    Of course nationalisation without compensation would not cost anything, at least initially (other than the hit to pension funds and Britain's economic reputation). But it would face challenge in the courts. So it would be very good news indeed for the legal profession.

    It's an ill wind ..... :)
    I don't think that even McDonnell would attempt sequestration; fixing the compensation is another kettle of fish.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 17,646
    Yorkcity said:

    John McDonnell has made a splendid contribution to reminding voters that Labour's plans are barmy, with his bizarre verbal gymnastics trying to claim that issuing a bond is not borrowing. I'm not sure whether we should be more worried about whether he believes this nonsense or doesn't believe it, but either way I think voters aren't so dumb; they may not be experts in economics and finance, but they do know that money doesn't grow on trees.

    I think many would disagree . As the money does get printed when required.I would believe you if it was possible for the B of e to go bust.
    Sure, you can print it instead of borrowing it (although you'd have to kill off BoE independence first).

    However, as I said, fortunately most voters aren't stupid enough to think that there's no catch in doing so.
  • Yorkcity said:

    John McDonnell has made a splendid contribution to reminding voters that Labour's plans are barmy, with his bizarre verbal gymnastics trying to claim that issuing a bond is not borrowing. I'm not sure whether we should be more worried about whether he believes this nonsense or doesn't believe it, but either way I think voters aren't so dumb; they may not be experts in economics and finance, but they do know that money doesn't grow on trees.

    I think many would disagree . As the money does get printed when required.I would believe you if it was possible for the B of e to go bust.
    B of E doesn't go bust - everyone else does as interest rates sky rocket
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 18,494

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Oxfam's deputy chief executive has resigned

    Not sure that is enough. But it is a start.
    Criminal charges are needed
    If there was indeed a crime as opposed to moral turpitude. But those who thought it a good idea to hide moral turpitude for the good of the brand must go.
    Prostitution in Haiti is a crime so those alleged to have been involved should have been reported to the police for consideration of prosecution
    I thought it wasn't unless they were underage. But it is well outside my jurisdiction!
    The outcry against Oxfam and aid agencies is getting a huge airing on the media just now and it is not a pretty sight
    The "professionalisation" of Charities has undoubtedly brought considerable benefits. They are more efficient in how they use their money, they can plan on a longer term basis working to deal with the underlying issues rather than just immediate sticking plasters, they can bring in the expertise they require more readily. But the pretence that such organisations have anything in common with the volunteer-led organisations of old was always going to catch them out eventually.

    Something similar happened to the mediaeval Church and the sale of indulgences.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 2,707

    Yorkcity said:

    Both main parties seem to be totally mad regarding economic basics

    You mean Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell in your reference to both parties !!!
    Cheer up BigG it's not all bad news https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/12/rupert-murdoch-pledge-keep-sky-news-independent-fox-takeover
    Actually Murdoch losing influence over Sky News would be a good thing but the wider problem for Sky News is if Disney decide tgey do not want to take on a news media that is losing money
    True would be sad to see it go, if that was the outcome.It is better that BBC and ITN have some competition.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,300

    RobD said:

    It will be interesting to see what Theresa May says about Russia in her Munich speech.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/russias-anti-eu-tweets-eclipsed-leave-campaign-8q6sr0hgm

    Anti-EU articles published by Russian media outlets had four times more social media impact before the Brexit vote than the official Leave campaigns, analysis suggests.

    That it's a free press?
    Do we want to encourage Russian propaganda?
    No, but censorship is not a viable solution.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 3,881

    Both main parties seem to be totally mad regarding economic basics

    You mean Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell in your reference to both parties !!!
    No. Tories and Labour. Paraphrasing for brevity.....

    Tories - "We can erect trade barriers with a major trading partner and it will have no effect. We can also make up any shortfall from trading with rich economies by trading with poor economies who cannot afford our products"

    Labour - "We can take whatever we want without paying and the economy will be boosted"
    I was joking !!
    I wish I was :)
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 3,881
    Cyclefree said:

    Both main parties seem to be totally mad regarding economic basics

    You mean Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell in your reference to both parties !!!
    No. Tories and Labour. Paraphrasing for brevity.....

    Tories - "We can erect trade barriers with a major trading partner and it will have no effect. We can also make up any shortfall from trading with rich economies by trading with poor economies who cannot afford our products"

    Labour - "We can take whatever we want without paying and the economy will be boosted"
    Yup. The Tories are trashing their brand. Labour are merely reinforcing theirs.
    :D :D

    Sadly true. It means that the only value in the major parties is their comedy potential.
  • Both main parties seem to be totally mad regarding economic basics

    You mean Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell in your reference to both parties !!!
    No. Tories and Labour. Paraphrasing for brevity.....

    Tories - "We can erect trade barriers with a major trading partner and it will have no effect. We can also make up any shortfall from trading with rich economies by trading with poor economies who cannot afford our products"

    Labour - "We can take whatever we want without paying and the economy will be boosted"
    I was joking !!
    I wish I was :)
    I know you and many others are very concerned (me included) at the present state of play but it will be resolved in due course and life will move on
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 2,707
    edited February 12

    Yorkcity said:

    John McDonnell has made a splendid contribution to reminding voters that Labour's plans are barmy, with his bizarre verbal gymnastics trying to claim that issuing a bond is not borrowing. I'm not sure whether we should be more worried about whether he believes this nonsense or doesn't believe it, but either way I think voters aren't so dumb; they may not be experts in economics and finance, but they do know that money doesn't grow on trees.

    I think many would disagree . As the money does get printed when required.I would believe you if it was possible for the B of e to go bust.
    Sure, you can print it instead of borrowing it (although you'd have to kill off BoE independence first).

    However, as I said, fortunately most voters aren't stupid enough to think that there's no catch in doing so.
    True but their disbelieve is now entrenched , when there was no moral hazard for the banks.However there always is for the individual dealing with borrowing.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 18,494

    Yorkcity said:

    John McDonnell has made a splendid contribution to reminding voters that Labour's plans are barmy, with his bizarre verbal gymnastics trying to claim that issuing a bond is not borrowing. I'm not sure whether we should be more worried about whether he believes this nonsense or doesn't believe it, but either way I think voters aren't so dumb; they may not be experts in economics and finance, but they do know that money doesn't grow on trees.

    I think many would disagree . As the money does get printed when required.I would believe you if it was possible for the B of e to go bust.
    Sure, you can print it instead of borrowing it (although you'd have to kill off BoE independence first).

    However, as I said, fortunately most voters aren't stupid enough to think that there's no catch in doing so.
    All common sense tells me that you are right Richard. But when governments of both parties positively encouraged the printing of £435bn of QE to protect the banking sector (and of course to completely distort the market in UK Gilts keeping borrowing affordable) that particularly box has not only been opened but run over by a steamroller.
  • Yorkcity said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Both main parties seem to be totally mad regarding economic basics

    You mean Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell in your reference to both parties !!!
    Cheer up BigG it's not all bad news https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/12/rupert-murdoch-pledge-keep-sky-news-independent-fox-takeover
    Actually Murdoch losing influence over Sky News would be a good thing but the wider problem for Sky News is if Disney decide tgey do not want to take on a news media that is losing money
    True would be sad to see it go, if that was the outcome.It is better that BBC and ITN have some competition.
    For all my concern at Sky's pro EU reporting it would be a dreadful day if we were left with just the BBC - I rarely watch ITV for news
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,523
    I'm sure there are things Labour could be doing better - I definitely think that at some point soon, they've got to get off of the Brexit fence.

    The British Social Attitudes Survey does suggest however they are on the popular side of the public services/taxes divide:

    "There are signs of a reaction against the fiscal discipline of recent years, 48% now say the
    government should increase taxes and spend more, a higher proportion than at any point
    during the last 10 years."

    http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39145/bsa34_role-of-govt_final.pdf
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,908

    Oxfam's deputy chief executive has resigned

    It's always very important for the boss to find someone to take the blame.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 11,574
    edited February 12
    Just a passing thought today. The Oxfam reporting is highlighting Penny Mordaunt who seems to be getting quite a lot of praise. The Northern Ireland story shows Theresa May with Karen Bradley who seems to be doing a good job also.

    There is some polling showing TM improving with the female vote

    Equality on the march now
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,975

    Cyclefree said:

    Both main parties seem to be totally mad regarding economic basics

    You mean Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell in your reference to both parties !!!
    No. Tories and Labour. Paraphrasing for brevity.....

    Tories - "We can erect trade barriers with a major trading partner and it will have no effect. We can also make up any shortfall from trading with rich economies by trading with poor economies who cannot afford our products"

    Labour - "We can take whatever we want without paying and the economy will be boosted"
    Yup. The Tories are trashing their brand. Labour are merely reinforcing theirs.
    :D :D

    Sadly true. It means that the only value in the major parties is their comedy potential.
    Something is not right when you have erstwhile Labour supporters castigating the current Labour leadership and erstwhile Cons supporters doing the same thing for their own Party.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Oxfam's deputy chief executive has resigned

    It's always very important for the boss to find someone to take the blame.
    She was programme director at the time of Haiti and Chad
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,523



    Even more ludicrous is the thought that such a line would persuade someone to change their vote from blue to red, although it might well work the other way round.

    >40% of Tory voters support nationalising Royal Mail, railway companies and water companies. I'll admit that finding surprised me too!

    Labour's proposed nationalisations are favoured by the general public according to the polling.

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/19/nationalisation-vs-privatisation-public-view/
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,335

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Why aren't Labour attacking the Conservatives' disarray over Brexit much more vigorously? They don't need a position on Brexit to do this, simply pointing to the disarray would be enough.

    Also, I think it's a serious blunder for Labour to claim renationalisation would be free, even if they can produce sums to support their position. The public is very cynical. It would be more easily convinced if Labour claimed that there was a meaningful cost, but that cost was worthwhile. Trying to persuade the public that there's such a thing as a free lunch, particularly if - as Labour is - you're a party with a mediocre at best reputation for prudence with public finances, is much harder. It makes Labour look fiscally irresponsible again.

    Agree on both points.

    The idea that nationalisation would not cost taxpayers anything is just ludicrous.
    Even more ludicrous is the thought that such a line would persuade someone to change their vote from blue to red, although it might well work the other way round.
    Of course nationalisation without compensation would not cost anything, at least initially (other than the hit to pension funds and Britain's economic reputation). But it would face challenge in the courts. So it would be very good news indeed for the legal profession.

    It's an ill wind ..... :)
    I don't think that even McDonnell would attempt sequestration; fixing the compensation is another kettle of fish.
    Why are you so certain of this? I think his attempt to issue bonds in lieu of equity which would not cost anyone anything is so much flannel to cover up the fact that in reality he would be seizing assets without compensation. He has also talked about capital controls. So I really am not so sanguine as you that someone who really does not believe in capitalism or markets would not do something like this.
  • rkrkrk said:



    Even more ludicrous is the thought that such a line would persuade someone to change their vote from blue to red, although it might well work the other way round.

    >40% of Tory voters support nationalising Royal Mail, railway companies and water companies. I'll admit that finding surprised me too!

    Labour's proposed nationalisations are favoured by the general public according to the polling.

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/19/nationalisation-vs-privatisation-public-view/
    Not once they know the real cost and the march of the unions into number 10
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,300
    rkrkrk said:



    Even more ludicrous is the thought that such a line would persuade someone to change their vote from blue to red, although it might well work the other way round.

    >40% of Tory voters support nationalising Royal Mail, railway companies and water companies. I'll admit that finding surprised me too!

    Labour's proposed nationalisations are favoured by the general public according to the polling.

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/19/nationalisation-vs-privatisation-public-view/
    Interesting how telephone/internet providers are so low, yet they too provide a basic utility. Probably because those are relatively cheap compared with water/electricity?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,523
    RobD said:

    rkrkrk said:



    Even more ludicrous is the thought that such a line would persuade someone to change their vote from blue to red, although it might well work the other way round.

    >40% of Tory voters support nationalising Royal Mail, railway companies and water companies. I'll admit that finding surprised me too!

    Labour's proposed nationalisations are favoured by the general public according to the polling.

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/19/nationalisation-vs-privatisation-public-view/
    Interesting how telephone/internet providers are so low, yet they too provide a basic utility. Probably because those are relatively cheap compared with water/electricity?
    Yeah... I wonder also if it's that people find it easier to switch network/internet provider.

    I find it surprising water is so high, might just be the people I know, but I don't hear people moan about their water provider/water bills very much.

    Whereas energy + the direct debit billing system comes up a lot.

    And trains... well....
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 4,530
    rcs1000 said:

    Oxfam's deputy chief executive has resigned

    It's always very important for the boss to find someone to take the blame.
    "Mark Goldring, chief executive of Oxfam GB, thanked Ms Lawrence for her service and said he "deeply respected" her decision to accept personal responsibility."

    I bet he bloody did.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 16,116
    rkrkrk said:



    Even more ludicrous is the thought that such a line would persuade someone to change their vote from blue to red, although it might well work the other way round.

    >40% of Tory voters support nationalising Royal Mail, railway companies and water companies. I'll admit that finding surprised me too!

    Labour's proposed nationalisations are favoured by the general public according to the polling.

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/19/nationalisation-vs-privatisation-public-view/
    Ask them this: if there are billions of pounds going to be borrowed would you a) spend it on renationalising water, rail, Royal Mail or b) the NHS?
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,480

    Just a passing thought today. The Oxfam reporting is highlighting Penny Mordaunt who seems to be getting quite a lot of praise. The Northern Ireland story shows Theresa May with Karen Bradley who seems to be doing a good job also.

    There is some polling showing TM improving with the female vote

    Equality on the march now

    I've seen Ms Mordaunt answer questions!
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,523

    Just a passing thought today. The Oxfam reporting is highlighting Penny Mordaunt who seems to be getting quite a lot of praise.

    I imagine Priti Patel is a bit irritated she missed out on the chance to be front page news.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 18,494
    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Oxfam's deputy chief executive has resigned

    It's always very important for the boss to find someone to take the blame.
    "Mark Goldring, chief executive of Oxfam GB, thanked Ms Lawrence for her service and said he "deeply respected" her decision to accept personal responsibility."

    I bet he bloody did.
    LOL.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 16,995
    RobD said:

    rkrkrk said:



    Even more ludicrous is the thought that such a line would persuade someone to change their vote from blue to red, although it might well work the other way round.

    >40% of Tory voters support nationalising Royal Mail, railway companies and water companies. I'll admit that finding surprised me too!

    Labour's proposed nationalisations are favoured by the general public according to the polling.

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/19/nationalisation-vs-privatisation-public-view/
    Interesting how telephone/internet providers are so low, yet they too provide a basic utility. Probably because those are relatively cheap compared with water/electricity?
    More likely that their market isn't hideously distorted by the legacy of public ownership which still lingers after a botched/partial privatisation.

    See electricity, water, gas, rail...

    Telecommunications and air travel seem to have been privatised correctly and the market works well.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 18,467

    rkrkrk said:



    Even more ludicrous is the thought that such a line would persuade someone to change their vote from blue to red, although it might well work the other way round.

    >40% of Tory voters support nationalising Royal Mail, railway companies and water companies. I'll admit that finding surprised me too!

    Labour's proposed nationalisations are favoured by the general public according to the polling.

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/19/nationalisation-vs-privatisation-public-view/
    Ask them this: if there are billions of pounds going to be borrowed would you a) spend it on renationalising water, rail, Royal Mail or b) the NHS?
    Their answer would probably be to invest in renationalising those industries, and use the vast and unending profits not only to pay off the debt, but also to invest in the NHS.

    Besides, the Magic Money Tree always gives. Why not do both? ;)
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 16,995
    rkrkrk said:

    Just a passing thought today. The Oxfam reporting is highlighting Penny Mordaunt who seems to be getting quite a lot of praise.

    I imagine Priti Patel is a bit irritated she missed out on the chance to be front page news.
    Sounds like she is serving up her revenge cold...
  • rkrkrk said:

    Just a passing thought today. The Oxfam reporting is highlighting Penny Mordaunt who seems to be getting quite a lot of praise.

    I imagine Priti Patel is a bit irritated she missed out on the chance to be front page news.
    She's doing her best to muscle in and of course she has an agenda to reduce foreign aid
  • rkrkrk said:

    I'm sure there are things Labour could be doing better - I definitely think that at some point soon, they've got to get off of the Brexit fence.

    The British Social Attitudes Survey does suggest however they are on the popular side of the public services/taxes divide:

    "There are signs of a reaction against the fiscal discipline of recent years, 48% now say the
    government should increase taxes and spend more, a higher proportion than at any point
    during the last 10 years."

    http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39145/bsa34_role-of-govt_final.pdf

    Yes, I would have thought that at some point Labour have to pivot to a more stridently anti-Brexit position. They could do this under Corbyn, but rather more easily under a new Leader such as Starmer or Thornbury.

    Timing is of the essence, of course, and they may be right in letting things run a bit more before adopting the full-teapot posture but I don't think they should risk leaving it too long. That would invite the question 'why didn't you speak up sooner?' and that would never do.

    I'd give it a few more months, no more.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 18,467
    Let's make it clear.

    Rail privatisation has worked. Passenger numbers have doubled, and train travel is safer than ever before. It's hard to paint this as anything other than a success.

    Where the rail network is failing, it is Network Rail, not the privatised companies as a whole. Not only are they failing on enhancements, but they are also failing on their bread-and-butter renewals and maintenance work.

    These failures do not seem a good precedent for putting operations and train ownership into public hands ...
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 5,780

    rkrkrk said:



    Even more ludicrous is the thought that such a line would persuade someone to change their vote from blue to red, although it might well work the other way round.

    >40% of Tory voters support nationalising Royal Mail, railway companies and water companies. I'll admit that finding surprised me too!

    Labour's proposed nationalisations are favoured by the general public according to the polling.

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/19/nationalisation-vs-privatisation-public-view/
    Ask them this: if there are billions of pounds going to be borrowed would you a) spend it on renationalising water, rail, Royal Mail or b) the NHS?
    Their answer would probably be to invest in renationalising those industries, and use the vast and unending profits not only to pay off the debt, but also to invest in the NHS.

    Besides, the Magic Money Tree always gives. Why not do both? ;)
    Given that in the last 7 odd years only £13bn has been paid in dividends by the water companies that Magic Money Tree is looking a little weedy.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 16,995

    Let's make it clear.

    Rail privatisation has worked. Passenger numbers have doubled, and train travel is safer than ever before. It's hard to paint this as anything other than a success.

    Where the rail network is failing, it is Network Rail, not the privatised companies as a whole. Not only are they failing on enhancements, but they are also failing on their bread-and-butter renewals and maintenance work.

    These failures do not seem a good precedent for putting operations and train ownership into public hands ...

    Yet when I turn up at the station I don't have the choice of Easytrain or Ryantrain or BA.

    Its a monopoly - which may explain why the pressures to provide a good service arent there.

  • philiphphiliph Posts: 2,673

    rkrkrk said:



    Even more ludicrous is the thought that such a line would persuade someone to change their vote from blue to red, although it might well work the other way round.

    >40% of Tory voters support nationalising Royal Mail, railway companies and water companies. I'll admit that finding surprised me too!

    Labour's proposed nationalisations are favoured by the general public according to the polling.

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/19/nationalisation-vs-privatisation-public-view/
    Not once they know the real cost and the march of the unions into number 10
    It's all very well to highlight this with a reference to 'last time' for old fossils like you and me, but to the younger generations who don't have our first hand recollection and experience it is a meaningless comment.

    Unions aren't that bad to most people now. They haven't wielded unfettered power and caused disruption in most voters memory.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,157

    rkrkrk said:

    I'm sure there are things Labour could be doing better - I definitely think that at some point soon, they've got to get off of the Brexit fence.

    The British Social Attitudes Survey does suggest however they are on the popular side of the public services/taxes divide:

    "There are signs of a reaction against the fiscal discipline of recent years, 48% now say the
    government should increase taxes and spend more, a higher proportion than at any point
    during the last 10 years."

    http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39145/bsa34_role-of-govt_final.pdf

    Yes, I would have thought that at some point Labour have to pivot to a more stridently anti-Brexit position. They could do this under Corbyn, but rather more easily under a new Leader such as Starmer or Thornbury.

    Timing is of the essence, of course, and they may be right in letting things run a bit more before adopting the full-teapot posture but I don't think they should risk leaving it too long. That would invite the question 'why didn't you speak up sooner?' and that would never do.

    I'd give it a few more months, no more.
    Labour should say that they'd negotiate full access to the Customs Union. That would solve three problems in a trice:

    Freedom of movement (we still wouldn't be subject to it).
    Northern Ireland border.
    Chlorinated chicken.

    The grim irony (for the Tories) is that business would be happy with that, but Theresa dare not go there for fear of the Dream Team.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,300

    rkrkrk said:



    Even more ludicrous is the thought that such a line would persuade someone to change their vote from blue to red, although it might well work the other way round.

    >40% of Tory voters support nationalising Royal Mail, railway companies and water companies. I'll admit that finding surprised me too!

    Labour's proposed nationalisations are favoured by the general public according to the polling.

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/19/nationalisation-vs-privatisation-public-view/
    Ask them this: if there are billions of pounds going to be borrowed would you a) spend it on renationalising water, rail, Royal Mail or b) the NHS?
    Their answer would probably be to invest in renationalising those industries, and use the vast and unending profits not only to pay off the debt, but also to invest in the NHS.

    Besides, the Magic Money Tree always gives. Why not do both? ;)
    Given that in the last 7 odd years only £13bn has been paid in dividends by the water companies that Magic Money Tree is looking a little weedy.
    A rounding error when it comes to government finances.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,480
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Why aren't Labour attacking the Conservatives' disarray over Brexit much more vigorously? They don't need a position on Brexit to do this, simply pointing to the disarray would be enough.

    Also, I think it's a serious blunder for Labour to claim renationalisation would be free, even if they can produce sums to support their position. The public is very cynical. It would be more easily convinced if Labour claimed that there was a meaningful cost, but that cost was worthwhile. Trying to persuade the public that there's such a thing as a free lunch, particularly if - as Labour is - you're a party with a mediocre at best reputation for prudence with public finances, is much harder. It makes Labour look fiscally irresponsible again.

    Agree on both points.

    The idea that nationalisation would not cost taxpayers anything is just ludicrous.
    Even more ludicrous is the thought that such a line would persuade someone to change their vote from blue to red, although it might well work the other way round.
    Of course nationalisation without compensation would not cost anything, at least initially (other than the hit to pension funds and Britain's economic reputation). But it would face challenge in the courts. So it would be very good news indeed for the legal profession.

    It's an ill wind ..... :)
    I don't think that even McDonnell would attempt sequestration; fixing the compensation is another kettle of fish.
    Why are you so certain of this? I think his attempt to issue bonds in lieu of equity which would not cost anyone anything is so much flannel to cover up the fact that in reality he would be seizing assets without compensation. He has also talked about capital controls. So I really am not so sanguine as you that someone who really does not believe in capitalism or markets would not do something like this.
    I'm certain I never said I was certain, merely thought. I thought JM said he would issue gilts to raise the money to pay shareholders in cash. However, I am certain that both JC and JM would do whatever they could get away with to serve their political leanings (fixing the compensation) and I am not economically nor politically sanguine at all about the consequences of them doing what they might well get away with physically doing. I find the prospect truly frightening on every level, including that of civil liberties.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 5,780
    RobD said:

    rkrkrk said:



    Even more ludicrous is the thought that such a line would persuade someone to change their vote from blue to red, although it might well work the other way round.

    >40% of Tory voters support nationalising Royal Mail, railway companies and water companies. I'll admit that finding surprised me too!

    Labour's proposed nationalisations are favoured by the general public according to the polling.

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/19/nationalisation-vs-privatisation-public-view/
    Ask them this: if there are billions of pounds going to be borrowed would you a) spend it on renationalising water, rail, Royal Mail or b) the NHS?
    Their answer would probably be to invest in renationalising those industries, and use the vast and unending profits not only to pay off the debt, but also to invest in the NHS.

    Besides, the Magic Money Tree always gives. Why not do both? ;)
    Given that in the last 7 odd years only £13bn has been paid in dividends by the water companies that Magic Money Tree is looking a little weedy.
    A rounding error when it comes to government finances.
    Indeed, and those dividends went to pension funds etc and taxes were paid on them...
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,975
    edited February 12

    rkrkrk said:

    I'm sure there are things Labour could be doing better - I definitely think that at some point soon, they've got to get off of the Brexit fence.

    The British Social Attitudes Survey does suggest however they are on the popular side of the public services/taxes divide:

    "There are signs of a reaction against the fiscal discipline of recent years, 48% now say the
    government should increase taxes and spend more, a higher proportion than at any point
    during the last 10 years."

    http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39145/bsa34_role-of-govt_final.pdf

    Yes, I would have thought that at some point Labour have to pivot to a more stridently anti-Brexit position. They could do this under Corbyn, but rather more easily under a new Leader such as Starmer or Thornbury.

    Timing is of the essence, of course, and they may be right in letting things run a bit more before adopting the full-teapot posture but I don't think they should risk leaving it too long. That would invite the question 'why didn't you speak up sooner?' and that would never do.

    I'd give it a few more months, no more.
    Labour should say that they'd negotiate full access to the Customs Union. That would solve three problems in a trice:

    Freedom of movement (we still wouldn't be subject to it).
    Northern Ireland border.
    Chlorinated chicken.

    The grim irony (for the Tories) is that business would be happy with that, but Theresa dare not go there for fear of the Dream Team.
    Nah. They should just say they respect the will of the British people and are going to hold a wide-ranging strategic review on Brexit. Hinting at all things to all people will be just fine until Jezza or, preferably for me, La Thornberry walks into No.10 after the GE.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 2,673
    While we are talking Nationalisation, how about Nationalisation of Oxfam and their ilk?

    In many ways central government is in a better place to provide disaster relief and emergency supplies to peoples who are in crisis.

    You could argue it is a beneficial global projection of UK to see the Nation providing help rather than the abstract Oxfam, Red Cross etc.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,335
    rkrkrk said:

    Just a passing thought today. The Oxfam reporting is highlighting Penny Mordaunt who seems to be getting quite a lot of praise.

    I imagine Priti Patel is a bit irritated she missed out on the chance to be front page news.
    Perhaps if she'd done her bloody job instead of waltzing round Israel inventing her own foreign policy she might still be in Cabinet......
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 18,467
    TGOHF said:

    Let's make it clear.

    Rail privatisation has worked. Passenger numbers have doubled, and train travel is safer than ever before. It's hard to paint this as anything other than a success.

    Where the rail network is failing, it is Network Rail, not the privatised companies as a whole. Not only are they failing on enhancements, but they are also failing on their bread-and-butter renewals and maintenance work.

    These failures do not seem a good precedent for putting operations and train ownership into public hands ...

    Yet when I turn up at the station I don't have the choice of Easytrain or Ryantrain or BA.

    Its a monopoly - which may explain why the pressures to provide a good service arent there
    It's a hybrid mess of private and public, but it mostly seems to work (tm).

    As for it being a monopoly: I'm unsure it classes as such, as there are so many alternatives: private car, taxi, bus, coach and, for long distance, flying. If you take the business as 'rail travel', then it is a monopoly. If you take it as 'getting from A to B', which is what most people use it for, then in most cases it isn't.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 5,780

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Why aren't Labour attacking the Conservatives' disarray over Brexit much more vigorously? They don't need a position on Brexit to do this, simply pointing to the disarray would be enough.

    Also, I think it's a serious blunder for Labour to claim renationalisation would be free, even if they can produce sums to support their position. The public is very cynical. It would be more easily convinced if Labour claimed that there was a meaningful cost, but that cost was worthwhile. Trying to persuade the public that there's such a thing as a free lunch, particularly if - as Labour is - you're a party with a mediocre at best reputation for prudence with public finances, is much harder. It makes Labour look fiscally irresponsible again.

    Agree on both points.

    The idea that nationalisation would not cost taxpayers anything is just ludicrous.
    Even more ludicrous is the thought that such a line would persuade someone to change their vote from blue to red, although it might well work the other way round.
    Of course nationalisation without compensation would not cost anything, at least initially (other than the hit to pension funds and Britain's economic reputation). But it would face challenge in the courts. So it would be very good news indeed for the legal profession.

    It's an ill wind ..... :)
    I don't think that even McDonnell would attempt sequestration; fixing the compensation is another kettle of fish.
    Why are you so certain of this? I think his attempt to issue bonds in lieu of equity which would not cost anyone anything is so much flannel to cover up the fact that in reality he would be seizing assets without compensation. He has also talked about capital controls. So I really am not so sanguine as you that someone who really does not believe in capitalism or markets would not do something like this.
    I'm certain I never said I was certain, merely thought. I thought JM said he would issue gilts to raise the money to pay shareholders in cash. However, I am certain that both JC and JM would do whatever they could get away with to serve their political leanings (fixing the compensation) and I am not economically nor politically sanguine at all about the consequences of them doing what they might well get away with physically doing. I find the prospect truly frightening on every level, including that of civil liberties.
    I don't think they care. they just want control, and they'll just take it and worry about the consquences after,
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,480

    rkrkrk said:



    Even more ludicrous is the thought that such a line would persuade someone to change their vote from blue to red, although it might well work the other way round.

    >40% of Tory voters support nationalising Royal Mail, railway companies and water companies. I'll admit that finding surprised me too!

    Labour's proposed nationalisations are favoured by the general public according to the polling.

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/19/nationalisation-vs-privatisation-public-view/
    Ask them this: if there are billions of pounds going to be borrowed would you a) spend it on renationalising water, rail, Royal Mail or b) the NHS?
    Their answer would probably be to invest in renationalising those industries, and use the vast and unending profits not only to pay off the debt, but also to invest in the NHS.

    Besides, the Magic Money Tree always gives. Why not do both? ;)
    Never before have I seen Corbynomics so persuasively and succinctly described. I'm in!
  • philiph said:

    rkrkrk said:



    Even more ludicrous is the thought that such a line would persuade someone to change their vote from blue to red, although it might well work the other way round.

    >40% of Tory voters support nationalising Royal Mail, railway companies and water companies. I'll admit that finding surprised me too!

    Labour's proposed nationalisations are favoured by the general public according to the polling.

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/19/nationalisation-vs-privatisation-public-view/
    Not once they know the real cost and the march of the unions into number 10
    It's all very well to highlight this with a reference to 'last time' for old fossils like you and me, but to the younger generations who don't have our first hand recollection and experience it is a meaningless comment.

    Unions aren't that bad to most people now. They haven't wielded unfettered power and caused disruption in most voters memory.
    That is true but if Corbyn gets in they are going to learn very quicly the horrors of unfettered union control of our essential services
  • rkrkrk said:

    I'm sure there are things Labour could be doing better - I definitely think that at some point soon, they've got to get off of the Brexit fence.

    The British Social Attitudes Survey does suggest however they are on the popular side of the public services/taxes divide:

    "There are signs of a reaction against the fiscal discipline of recent years, 48% now say the
    government should increase taxes and spend more, a higher proportion than at any point
    during the last 10 years."

    http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39145/bsa34_role-of-govt_final.pdf

    Yes, I would have thought that at some point Labour have to pivot to a more stridently anti-Brexit position. They could do this under Corbyn, but rather more easily under a new Leader such as Starmer or Thornbury.

    Timing is of the essence, of course, and they may be right in letting things run a bit more before adopting the full-teapot posture but I don't think they should risk leaving it too long. That would invite the question 'why didn't you speak up sooner?' and that would never do.

    I'd give it a few more months, no more.
    Labour should say that they'd negotiate full access to the Customs Union. That would solve three problems in a trice:

    Freedom of movement (we still wouldn't be subject to it).
    Northern Ireland border.
    Chlorinated chicken.

    The grim irony (for the Tories) is that business would be happy with that, but Theresa dare not go there for fear of the Dream Team.
    You mean remain in the custons union, something ruled out this weekend by Corbyn and McDonnell
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,975

    philiph said:

    rkrkrk said:



    Even more ludicrous is the thought that such a line would persuade someone to change their vote from blue to red, although it might well work the other way round.

    >40% of Tory voters support nationalising Royal Mail, railway companies and water companies. I'll admit that finding surprised me too!

    Labour's proposed nationalisations are favoured by the general public according to the polling.

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/19/nationalisation-vs-privatisation-public-view/
    Not once they know the real cost and the march of the unions into number 10
    It's all very well to highlight this with a reference to 'last time' for old fossils like you and me, but to the younger generations who don't have our first hand recollection and experience it is a meaningless comment.

    Unions aren't that bad to most people now. They haven't wielded unfettered power and caused disruption in most voters memory.
    That is true but if Corbyn gets in they are going to learn very quicly the horrors of unfettered union control of our essential services
    It won't be that bad. The wilder excesses will be toned down. Oh for sure, there will be billions of pounds of value destruction but hey, we the voting public seem to have gained a taste for that sort of thing of late.
This discussion has been closed.