UKC

The survey of voters, commissioned by the Times, predicts that the Conservatives could fall short of winning an overall majority of seats on June 8.In contrast to signs from a string of opinion polls that have suggested May’s Conservatives will increase their majority, the new constituency-by-constituency modelling by YouGov showed it might lose 20 of the 330 seats it holds and the opposition Labour Party could gain nearly 30 seats, The Times said.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/05/30/yougov-poll-one-week-before-election-predicts...

If the tories fail to get a decent majority, will they ditch their leader?

In reply to Big Ger:

I still reckon there'll be a massive Tory majority but if the polls continue this trend I wonder if we'll see Boris inching away from TM

In reply to Big Ger:

The part I'm least looking forward to is when the Tories get angry at May for failing to deliver their overwhelming majority, evict her, and install Boris at the helm.

It'll be just another step on the road to pitchforks and flaming torches. Come the revolution, comrades, there won't be enough lampposts for the bastards. We'll have to make them share!

In reply to Pete Houghton:

>
Ah, the new kinder politics. Don't let that mask slip....

In reply to Big Ger:

Think it's time to wheel out the big guns, Boris!

Only joking, better for the Tories to sit quiet. The one thing Abbot can't do and just let them display their future competency.

In reply to Big Ger:

>If the tories fail to get a decent majority, will they ditch their leader?
>
They'll probably feel that they can't. If she fails to get a a majority she's toast. About the only thing she's got going for her is that she's not Corbyn.

In reply to Pete Houghton:

And I thought the tories were the nasty party! But all I hear on facebook and in some pubs is 'kill the tory scum' etc and theyre not joking like you might be.

In reply to Pete Houghton:


Probably because the Tories will have privatised street lighting, with the inevitable 'streamlining of infrastructure'.

In reply to Ron Rees Davies:


But at least the lights will be on.

In reply to Postmanpat:


And the total backing of Murdoch and Dacre. That's the difference.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


No difference in their politics and personalities?

In reply to Red Rover:
>
Labour are the party of hate, so sure of their own higher moral plane that they are sure that their hatred is acceptable:"To the Godly all things are Godly"

In reply to Postmanpat:

Yes I've noticed that. Watching people dance in the streets when thatcher died made me sick. Say what you like about the tory supporters but they never celebrated when a famous socialist died. Never saw tory supporters rioting when they didnt get what they want either, or calling for people who dont agree with them to be shot, or shouting at them in the street for being scum etc. This kind of thing has made me question the narrative of left=good tory=bad and now I'm a heretic I'm sometimes on the recieving end of the nastyness from Corbynistas. The bullying and aggressiveness of momentum is the main reason I won't vote for Corbyn.

In reply to summo:


Not round our way they aren't, they all go off at midnight.

In reply to Red Rover:

>
Corbyn as PM would, over the longer term, do more harm to public services and the ordinary people of the UK than a Tory government in your nightmares.

In reply to summo:


Not if they go ahead with the new Hinkley EPR that looks like it may not be a design that can even be built ( at best , not in the timescales that we need due to the rate of posture of conventional power stations)

Not a problem for us, most folks in here are capable of lighting their own fires

In reply to Red Rover:


I don't suppose any 'famous socialist'* destroyed the livelihoods of whole towns of tory supporters then systematically set about dismantling the safety net she'd cast its people onto without a second thought for re-investing in decimated industrial communities. The harm Thatcher's government did, not in closing obsolete industry down but in studiously looking away once they had is still felt keenly today and deserves not to be forgotten. I don't begrudge those who suffered at her hands their celebration of her death.

*not really sure what this means in a British context, Tony Benn maybe?


I wonder why. Do you actually believe it's their political allegiance or their radically different social circumstances, power and opportunities that make the difference? That said, we do hear stories of our tory mps' riotous high jinks smashing up restaurants as students and screwing dead pigs, their excuse no better than the urban youth smashing a shop window to nick some trainers or an x-box, arguably worse.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

>
Socialism was responsible for the creation of a failing economy, a dependency culture and poverty of aspiration and outcome that undermined the wellbeing of the people of the UK for decades. Get off you high horse. You have no right to be on it and it gives no justification for the hate filled bile of the left.

In reply to summo:


Only if the Chinese and French let you leave the lights on.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Plenty to hate:

http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/tory-conference-anger-over-ids-work-yo...

Work makes you free... Now where have we heard that before?

In reply to Postmanpat:

And before the snowflakes start to wilt about unfair comparisons...

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/disable...

Stop making it so easy.

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

So do you think that disabled people shouldn't have a job?
Isn't that some form of discrimination?

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Plenty to condemn on both sides but I think screwing up a whole country like the left probably wins. The difference is the bigotry and arrogance of the left, that only they can be right and therefore have carte blanche to behave like animals.

In reply to Big Ger:

The 2015 polls that were wrong predicted a better turn out for Labour, this one will probably be the same.The polls showing the greatest improvement for Labour are those that have decided that the generally pro Corbyn youth (18-25) will actually get out and vote, the poll giving Labour the best result has the youth turn out to be the same as the 55+ bracket which historically hasn't happened. The polls have changed their sampling strategy but anyone who replies to polls generally had an interest in politics and don't necessarily represent their equivalent man on the street. The pollsters have attempted to change their weighting factors but it's still all a bit voodoo imho.......

So, taking that into account and the "silent Tory" factor, I don't think she's as on the ropes as the polls imply. The biggest mistake TM has made since calling the election is releasing the manifesto. She was doing quite well till then.......

In reply to Postmanpat:


F*ck me. Absolutely no sense of irony.

In reply to lummox:


F*ck me. Absolutely no sense of irony.

In reply to Jim C:


A relatively recent costing the earth programme suggested that if the UK took serious energy saving measures it could save the same energy that the new plant produced.

In reply to lummox:

I've more faith in them than the UK unions, who habitually hold London to ransom with their underground strikes every time they want a
bit of extra spending money.

I recall my grandad explaining electricity phases, volt, amps in 70s when there were power problems...

In reply to summo:

Which unions involved in electricity production are you talking about ? Ones with history of disruptive industrial action in the last ten years ?

In reply to lummox:


I never said workers of power companies strike did I.

The underground is an example of union dominance holding a city to ransom.

Corbyn would like to see unionisation return and public ownership of utilities. Look back a little at how well that went last time.

In reply to summo:


Sadly, that's very unlikely to happen with a Tory government. Their record on energy efficiency is woeful. They've even been trying to undermine EU energy efficiency measures designed to come into force after Britain leaves the EU.

In reply to summo:


If the energy market was working for the benefit of consumers, how come the Tory manifesto is proposing a cap on energy bills? The evidence that privatisation of energy has been a good thing is pretty scant.

In reply to summo:

You and your fellow travellers seem to be the ones looking back 40 years by selling off vital infrastructure to communist countries. True blue patriotism at its finest.

In reply to tony:


Would agree. They only dropped their green policies after the coalition ended. Sometimes people don't grasp just how successful the lib dems were.

In reply to lummox:


Never claimed to be Tory etc.. It is tough for folk to grasp but just because I think Corbyn is useless, doesn't mean i agree with the Tories. The UK has been let down by both parties for decades.

In reply to tony:


It is just copy cat carrot dangling. UK energy needs investment, it's been lacking for years. The population will pay for it one way or another and capping bills won't increase investment either.

In reply to Postmanpat:


It's funny how the right always see economic problems as caused by the left. Despite having more time at the helm over the last century. The very idea that we, the 5th biggest economy in the world, should be aiming to shrink the state to 1930s levels is absolutely appalling. There would be no NHS, education beyond 14 would be for the few, the welfare state reduced to parish relief and workhouses etc etc.

In reply to summo:


You could be in pitch darkness and the great leader will claim the lights are on , thanks to strong and stable electricity.

Then shell blame Jeremy Corbyn

In reply to Andy Hardy:
>
But we're not. That analysis was simply nonsense aka: fake news.

In reply to summo:


I don't think it's that tough to grasp, I would say that your posts are often critical of Corbyn/Labour/the left but rarely, if at all, offer a similar level of criticism of the TM/Tories/the right, ergo people assume you are a Tory.

It may not been true, but as someone who doesn't know you, it reflects how you post.

In reply to tony:

What was it last week- 25% of power generated by solar? Not bad.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I don't do social media, but my wife has "unfriended" (or whatever it is on FB) a number of village acquaintances, due the the constant stream of unpleasant Tory hating bile coming from them. And that is all it is, unadulterated hate, something we have never come across from the other parties supporters (UKIP excepting).
Unfortunately this attitude enforces my decision to never vote labour.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Blimey, you appear to have started taking the same stuff that Simon4 regularly quaffs.

Socialism isn't inherently evil, like you seem to think, it's about organising society in a away that is fair and equitable, rather than the 'winner takes all/greed is good' philosophy underlying capitalism.

There WAS a misguided trend towards the state taking too much responsibility for individuals, this was part of the post war settlement. Millions of working class lads had died in WW I, with very little to show for it between the wars; during WWII creating a fairer settlement was part and parcel of the motivation of the sons and daughters of those same WWI soldiers. If the new welfare state failed to recognise the requirement for personal responsibility, well, it was new after all.

Atlee did a pretty good job of steering a wrecked and impoverished country through the post war years; and financial crises and mismanagement have hardly been a Labour exclusive. Not many socialist governments in the 1930s; who was in charge when we went on a 3 day week in the 70s; remind me who was in charge when unemployment trebled in the early 80s; and how much was lost on Black Wednesday?

In reply to Big Ger:

I think Corbyn is doing his best to ensure labour don't win.

The blithering idiot doesn't even know the figures and costings of his own manifesto and now he wants to increase my council tax by double or even triple.
Your council tax is likely to be 0.85% of your house/property value per year.

That's me out!

In reply to neilh:


That's energy generation - not energy efficiency. It's great that we have so much renewable, but if we didn't waste so much energy, we wouldn't need to generate so much. Sadly, we have a Department of Energy which is still living in the ages of big generation and sees big power stations as the future, very much in hock to the big power companies. Wider scale distributed generation such as solar should be much more actively promoted.

In reply to WaterMonkey:

First: You appear to be reading a lot into a little, it isn't even a policy proposal but a proposal to examine options around taxing wealth held in land. Hardly unreasonable if your objective is a society that values work a bit more and accumulated wealth a bit less, one that aims for progressive taxation. Perhaps it isn't, if so, fair enough. Worth a read http://evolvepolitics.com/right-wing-press-lying-labours-land-value-tax-her... and http://www.labourland.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/JonesWilcoxLVTpaperFin...

Second: It's all well and good moaning about taxes but the consequences of choosing to pay less are harsh and usually fall on those least able to bear them, least able to protest. Fine if you're willing to look the other way but are you absolutely sure you are never going to become one of those people.
jk

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

>
No, but it has bad consequences and seems to attract some pretty unpleasant people. The difference is that Conservative aren't generally arrogant or bigoted enough to believe that socialists are inherently evil, just misguided. Socialists, however, make that assumption about Conservative almost every time they open their mouths.

Of course, the left assumes that they have a rightful monopoly on conviction politics and thus throw their hands up in horror and condemnation that others may also have strong convictions.

In reply to Postmanpat:

In the inter war period spending was around 30% of GDP. Osborne's? target was to get down to 36% so you're right, not quite as bad as the 1930s although massively below other developed economies. I'd love to know how you would have an NHS or any kind of social safety net spending so little.

http://blog.policy.manchester.ac.uk/posts/2015/07/43-and-36-locking-in-the-...

In reply to Moley:


I'm working a social media rule that says any more than 10 political postings in a row and you're out

In reply to jkarran:

Yes, I read it on page 86 of his manifesto and read that same article you linked to. It clearly says 0.85% of the value of your property. He wouldn't write it in his manifesto if he wasn't seriously considering it.

Why should I pay more in taxes just for him to allow students to study at no cost and allow kids to get free child care without any means testing?

Student fees ensure people seriously consider what subjects they take and their career path, free uni would mean more people going because they don't know what to do with their lives. Oh and the funding he mentions giving to allow the free tuition fees doesn't even cover the amount of students currently studying let alone those enticed by the free fees.

Either way, he's still a blithering idiot who clearly hasn't worked out the correct costings or has worked them out and hasn't announced how much more tax us hard workers will have to pay.

In reply to Andy Hardy:


So, about the same level of spending to GDP as Australia, more than Switzerland,slightly below the developed country average of 39% and above that of Gordon Brown in 2001.

Through most of the 193os government spending/GDP was in the mid 20%s so 35-6% would actually be about 10% points higher.

From the Economist:
"In the year with the highest rate of spending, 1939, the government consumed only 30% of national income. And almost half of that—14% of output—was spent servicing the national debt accrued during the first world war, running Britain's empire and paying for its military and postal service. That only left 16% in 1939 for everything else—health, education, social security, policing, local government, infrastructure and so on—compared to around 30% in Mr Osborne's plans for 2020. In short, the story is not that Britain will be spending as little as the 1930s—but that in 2020 it will still be spending almost twice as much as a share of national income on public services and the welfare state as it was when "The Road to Wigan Pier" was penned."

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/12/public-spending-britain

So, in summary: the claim is nonsense.

In reply to WaterMonkey:


Why shouldn't it be seriously considered, there's a lot going for land value tax over other forms of taxation and you appear to be assuming it'll be additional, not offset elsewhere.


There are reasonable arguments for and against the universality of benefits but it's hard to argue against investing in free universal education. It's the very marketisation of education and student debt that has driven the growth of the kind the courses many deride as being low value to graduates and society alike. Student fees mean unis are clamoring to attract income, not by offering proven better career prospects over the competition because most can't, instead they offer gimmicks.
jk

In reply to WaterMonkey:

How much were tuition fees when you were 18?

In reply to Postmanpat:

'No, but it has bad consequences and seems to attract some pretty unpleasant people.'

And capitalism doesn't? The whole Victorian era was dedicated to the proposition that the poor had to starve for the 'market' to work it's magic. The light hearted novels of Richmal Crompton and P G Wodehouse were set in the same period where Jarrow ship workers or Welsh miners were expected to starve because 'there is no alternative.'

Today there will be Tory candidates who have no concept at all of how the other half live - I suspect the whole May proposal about paying for social care (which ironically I agreed with) was because she and her advisers know they will never get anywhere near the end of their assets when they need care in their old age - £50, £100K a year care fees? Pah, nothing! Didn't a Troy minister suggest that if old people had difficulty paying for fuel, they should consider selling a few paintings?! There will be Tory candidates who consider refugees as 'cockroaches' or 'swarms'; for whom the body of a 5 year old on a beach is somehow less important than that of 'an English child'. There will be Tory candidates who think that if you can't afford healthcare, you shouldn't get it.

And yes, there will be others who genuinely and thoughtfully believe that conservatism is the best strategy to develop a fairer, more prosperous and just society - and I can respect that, even agree with a lot of it. But I don't believe they are the majority.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


That's an interesting final thought. The obvious follow-up question would be:

Of conservative voters, how many believe in moderate conservatism rather than the out of touch and xenophobic picture you paint of their MPs? And if, as I believe to be the case, this is the vast majority, why the disconnect in representation?

In reply to Postmanpat:


And you are quite lucky you did not end up with political prisoners, labour camps and judicial murders as it usually is.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

So you have a jaundiced prejudice about people you've never met. So what? You acknowledge that that conservatism can be argued as "the best strategy to develop a fairer, more prosperous and just society" so stop the virtue signalling rubbish.

(which is a less restrained way of making bnb's point)

In reply to pavelk:

I agree, as I am sure would my friends in Argentina and Chile.

In reply to The New NickB:


I honestly don't know because I left school at 16 and started an apprenticeship to get a trade.
When I did my degree with the OU it was about £600 per year for about 7 years I think. Paid by myself upfront.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love there to be no tuition fees because I have 2 daughters who will be going in the next few years. One wants to be an Astro-Physicist which would mean her funding a PHD.
But there's is no such thing as free education, somebody has to pay for it. When the student pays it encourages them to think really hard whether they are doing the right course, gives them a reason to put in the extra work to ensure their fees are not wasted and discourages people who just go to uni because their mates have.

I imagine those currently paying off their student loans would be loath to pay more taxes to pay for other students' degrees!.

In reply to WaterMonkey:


Why? Educating the young is an investment in my future as much as theirs, why should bitterness over previous governments' poor decisions colour mine today. That said, I was actually very lucky to have my further education fully funded by a government that recognised what happens when you don't invest in your young, you lose them or you fail to realise their value which is bad for everyone young and old alike.

Why shouldn't kids with a passion for the arts or humanities feel able to pursue their interests, unafraid of a debt burden they may never be able to shake because it isn't something lucrative from STEM or on an obvious professional pathway? Without them and their knowledge our society would be far poorer.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

I'm quite interested in how much money £9,000 fees actually saves the government, not as much as we might think seems to be the answer.

In reply to Postmanpat:

So, about the same level of spending to GDP as Australia, more than Switzerland,slightly below the developed country average of 39%

Switzerland: health care is paid for privately / insurance

Australian? health care is funded by a mix of tax and insurance.

Neither system is like ours. The underlying point is that the NHS as we have it now cannot? operate with tax revenue at 36% of GDP.

In reply to jkarran:

Therein lies the quandry.18 year olds now got to university to study what they want from all sorts of backgrounds( what is it about 50% of that age group).

Perversely paying student fees does not seem to be any bar on students going to university.

In reply to wbo:


12volt DC then I presume? Not that chaotic AC stuff.

In reply to neilh:


It's 32%.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Christ, you really have turned into Simon4 haven't you?

No, not all tories are Gengis Khans but not all socialists are Diane Abbott, either.

In reply to summo:


Don't forget DC gave up power and f**ked off to his shed to write his memoirs.

I think the current supply is bullshit and hot air.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

>
Ah, you mean the Swiss system widely regarded as one of the world's best and Australia to which all our junior doctors were going to emigrate to avoid the NHS? Wouldn't want to learn from them would we?
Anyway, you have 1) completely ignored the salient points in the Economist's destruction of your case. 2)Failed to note that Osborne is no longer chancellor.

In reply to The New NickB:

Stand corrected!

Still considerably higher than the 5% or so who went when it was fully funded.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


It's the lefties on here and in general that are happy to endlessly employ low grade abuse as if every Tory voter were an evil acolyte of their Ghengis Khan and Theresa May, a rather dull, unimaginative and uninspiring middle aged woman from Oxfordshire , were the second coming of Bloody Mary.

If you like to give it, don't complain when you get some back.

In reply to Postmanpat:

...but..but..but it's the lefties.

In reply to lummox:


I cannot tell a lie......

In reply to neilh:


If you go back to about 1960. By the early 90s when I went and it was still fully funded, the figure was over 20%.

Interestingly is seems that charging student £9,000 only saves around £760m a year, a small fraction of the education budget.

In reply to neilh:

I do doubt the all sorts of backgrounds bit, I can't believe the high cost of both courses and living for students doesn't (no doubt with many individual exceptions we can all point to) cause some social segregation in both applications and outcomes beyond that which we accept as a result of unequally distributed resources at primary and secondary levels. There will be talent lost in those groups who either do not enroll for fear of the debt or end up working nights to pay the rent. Several days a week my young cousin stops at home only for an hours nap and to change for morning economics lectures after her shift. She's a bright kid who's battled some serious adversity to get where she is but can she shine when she's been awake pulling pints and cleaning all night...

Also, by pushing the debt years down the line onto students rather than those who benefited from debt free education carrying it we damage at the very point in their lives where they need it most their ability to access affordable finance for making homes, starting buisinesses and families. Benefits most of us enjoyed and activities broadly considered beneficial to our society.
jk

In reply to Red Rover:

I don't know what planet you live on but in the real world the hard right are just as guilty of celebration of the death or failure of a political enemy as the hard left. The bullying and aggressiveness of momentum is no different to that in the Daily Fail.

In reply to Offwidth:


But would you have a student who wasn't even alive when Tony Blair was in office dancing in streets in however many years time he dies? I think not.

In reply to summo:


I'm sure you are doing your bit to make that happen.

In reply to jkarran:
Pre tuition fees many students would often find uni life difficult because their parents were expected to fund their living costs.
So even though there weren't any tuition fees many people quickly used up the funds available from mum and dad and the meagre bank loans soon ran out.
Uni friends used to discuss the benefits of being able to borrow money to live on during uni and paying it back later.
So free uni education only ever existed for those able to secure a grant - like me

In reply to baron:

Most would come out of University in the old days with a bit of debt, just not £50k+

In reply to The New NickB:


Nope. I might dislike a person's policies, actions, goals, ideals etc.. but I would never stoop so low to celebrate their death and I have zero respect for anyone else who does, regardless of which side of the fence their political beliefs lie.

In reply to Offwidth:


And the hard right has been largely cast into the outer reaches of UKIP or the BNP whereas the hard left is part of the inner cabal of the Labour party that the usual suspects on UKC are so fond of.

In reply to baron:

Are you happy about that, the huge debt's kids have to rack up today for the same education you enjoyed for free? And for what about one tenth of one penny in the pound on the average income tax rate* or tiny drop in the ocean compared to another foreign bombing adventure.

Do you suppose life is easier or harder for students today than under the funding regimes we each enjoyed? I think harder and I suspect you'd agree. You argue for that being right because I can't. We can afford to invest in our young people, frankly we can't afford not to.

*~200M/year cost from a post above, ~200B/year income tax take from Gov stats.
jk

In reply to Postmanpat:


UKIP are no more and have been absorbed back into the Tories as their policies have been adopted. I'd say the BNP are further "right" than Momentum are "left".

The main point is that their are horrible t**ts on both sides and whatever political ideology you follow, it doesn't excuse that kind of behaviour.

In reply to galpinos:

>
Yes there are, but did you notice any dancing in the streets or bottles of champagne when Foot and Benn died? I didn't. Any "jokes" by John Redwood about assassinating Neil Kinnock? None I noticed.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I'm sure they kept it to their clubs.

In reply to Postmanpat:

This is not to excuse those actions, which are obviously deplorable, but none of those mentioned were Prime Minister, Kinnock was never in Government and Foot and Benn, when in government did not destroy entire communities in the perceived way Thatcher did. I'm sure there are plenty of communist leaders around the world who's passing has been celebrated.

In reply to jkarran:

Where do you get £200 million a year from.?

An IFS report suggests that for 300,000 students the cost to the govt is between £4.4 and £6 billion.

In reply to Big Ger:

Oh, loving it. And all those people who criticized Corbyn for voting for the GE ...
Looks like an all-nighter on June 8/9th.
You might be coming back to a Labour Government, hahaha!

In reply to Big Ger:

My view on Corbyn regarding his uselessness is softening. Despite the odd cock up he seems genuinely unflappable and solid for Labour's popular manifesto. I won't be voting for him because I'm a Liberal but I now find I'm rooting for Labour against the Tories.
May has cocked up bigger time. Her stern calm demeanour has turned out to be a facade. The bloody difficult woman or whatever she boasts she is turns out to be a panic stricken u turner as soon as things get difficult. She becomes strident and whiney instead of measured and assured. She asks who we'd prefer negotiating with Brussels. I'd say anybody other than May Fox and Boris. The Tories have made her their standard. It is in tatters.

In reply to WaterMonkey:

In my professional life I have found that student loan system does three things

1) normalises huge debt. It has no effect on how devoted they are to their studies.
2) as it is insufficient to pay even for accommodation fees at even low ranking unis in even many parts of the country, encourages students to work too many hours at mcjobs taking away from their studies.
3) think they are buying a degree rather than an education service.

Its effects on course choice is starting to have en effect, with numbers in some courses dropping, but they aren't the ones you'd necessarily think...

There will be a number of uni's close in the next 10 years probably.

However, this would need checking by a proper study, and I'm probably biased...

In reply to neilh:


I'm not sure where £200m comes from, but let's be clear, charging them £9,000 pounds a year only saves around 12% of that. That's a lot of financial pain, for not a lot of savings. Debt of £2.7bn to save £760m, spectacularly inefficient.

In reply to galpinos:

So in an era where we should be celebrating that 25% of our power 1 day last week was generated by clean solar,some of us still look back at a mining industry that was then in decline which the rest of the world is trying now to move away from due to carbon emmissions( well apart from Trump).

In reply to Postmanpat:

Daily Fail and the Excess and the Scum the far right??? Your just guilty of the same exaggeration and selective regard of facts that you accuse your political oppoenents of.

In reply to neilh:

If you think the tragedy of the trampling of the miners was the loss of the industry then you've missed the point. The fact that it was done systematically and then nothing put in place to support those communities but simply abandoned is criminal. It makes me angry thinking about it, so for those that lived it I can imagine the anger being visceral.

In reply to summo:

I know students like that who have been 'educated' to hate Blair from the far right and on the far left. Then there are those who lost family in Iraq. Your lazy stereotypes will always have exceptions.

In reply to galpinos:
>
That is just your opinion. The opinion of millions of people was that Foot and Benn were part of governments or influenced governments or were standard bearers for policies that did enormous harm to the people of the UK. Indeed that they and their ilk were largely responsible for what followed.
Nevertheless, I saw no dancing in the streets.

In reply to Postmanpat:

'dull, unimaginative and uninspiring ' she may be, but she has the capacity to do some extraordinary damage, probably without even realising she's doing it.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
While I supported the government stance during the miners strike it was indeed deplorable that whole communities were allowed to decline.
There's a case for state support of uneconomic industry when the alternative is large numbers of people remaining unemployed for many years with all the ills that can bring.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


You really have no idea what harm Corbyn could do have you? All the things that worry you about brexit are going to be ten times worse were under a Corbyn government. Wake up FFS.

In reply to Postmanpat:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2016/dec/15/theresa-may-cuts-a-lonely-figure-at-eu-summit-video



Yeah, they're all quaking in their boots in her presence.
She's called this GE so she get out of it all without a shameful resignation like her spineless predecessor.
https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=664455&v=1#x8565354
She's had her 15 minutes of glory as PM of GB, she's got her picture on the wall of No 10, time to go dear.

In reply to Postmanpat:

http://cdn.quotesgram.com/img/22/51/298689049-20bccd85b3473662350115366efda...

In reply to Offwidth:

I haven't read the Sun or the Express for years. I accept the DM can be pretty unpleasant but I don't remember it celebrating any political deaths. It seems to me to indulge in equal opportunity unpleasantness but maybe I don't read it enough.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Voting Tory, unless you're Marquis Ponsonby Wankpiffle the Third, is like an abused wife going back to her husband - people on the outside can see it's going to end badly, but she listens to the bullshit, forgets the pain that's gone before and goes back to take another beating.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Let's hope we never get the chance to experience the alternative: economic and social suicide.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:
A strange analogy.
Many people do better with a Conservative government than a Labour one.
Most of those people aren't rich.
Neither are they stupid.
I'd suggest your battered wife analogy is better applied to a Labour government, promising everything when history tells a different story.

In reply to Offwidth:


My point was that those on the right disliked him, wouldn't lower themselves to be dancing in the street, singing songs etc.. about a person that was in office before they were born.

I wouldn't put it past a momentum member though. Listen to any politics programme, 99% of the hecklers, shouters and general rude interuption are from far left supporters, who only seem tolerant of free speech when it is something they agree with.

In reply to neilh:
A misremembering of Nick's 15:04 post which I took at face value but as I say, misremembered 760 as 160 and rounded up to make the maths simple, 800M was the figure I meant to use.
Jk

In reply to baron:
Do you think many people are doing well now , or seeing a progressive rise now in living standards? It seems that is taking a long time to shake off the hangover of 2008, and for many, if not most, life feels a lot less certain. Stagnant wages, inadequate pensions, deteriorating social services

I found it ironic to read a government complaint about the level of debt they inherited - the majority of that debt came from bailing out banks, not overspending. If a few banks had been allowed to go the wall imagine Conservative unhappiness.

Re. The great leader, and TV debates, a cardboard cutout and a recording of a few catchphrases will do the job. I'm sure she'll be top dollar at facing down Europe with her well thought through arguments and demands

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

We are seeing the same thing being played out in the USA at the moment with the demise of coal mining in places like PA

Unless you are ultra efficient like say in Aus- it is a has been industry.

We were ahead of the game strategically. Thank goodness it has allowed us to move on.

In reply to baron:


As the husband of a Teaching Assistant (working with kids with severe learning difficulties children) who hasn't (essentially) had a pay rise in the last seven years, and me, full time carer for one of our kids, I must've had a £5 rise in the last five years or so (BIG %%%%age rise, check out Carers Allowance!).

Also, within the last seven years, we've seen transport to school cutback and gone, we used to get help in the mornings to get our kid ready in the morning ... gone.

Benefits, declining with every letter that falls through the letter box.
I've slashed my spending like you wouldn't believe over the last few years.


F*ck you Torys, you don't give a shit about anyone other than yourselves.

In reply to Lusk:

Ah, the true voice of the left.

In reply to Lusk:

So you will be voting liberal then .as they keep pointing out that labour are maintaining those benefit cuts.

In reply to Postmanpat:

You obvious have some very strong ideas about the damage that Corbyn would do, why don't you list them. I am sure they will all be as well evidenced as you expect any criticism of Mrs May's government to be.

In reply to Lusk:
What's your annual income?

In reply to baron:


Scratching my head as to why you think I said that? Is it because you're not really a baron, but just a bit (tediously) mischievous?

Amber Rudd taking may's place on the bbc debate. Shes a former investment banker, venture capitalist and director of two companies based in the bahamas, about which not much appears to be known.

I wonder who's interests she has at heart?

In reply to Postmanpat:

You'd think an education at Cheltenham Ladies College would produce someone able to debate without tripping over her words.

In reply to Jack:


Exactly.

In reply to Jack:

Good God, she knows something about managing money. The last person we want influencing the direction of our economy.

In reply to Postmanpat:




the predictable blue response. It's like taking jelly babies off idiots





To baron, work it out, it's not hard.
If we were anywhere near the average, we'd be going on trips abroad.
A day trip upto Lakes from Manc is a major expense.

In reply to Lusk:

I am sure if Corbyn got in next week, benefits will increase etc.. and life will feel easier for you. But so will borrowing and the debt can will be kicked a little further down the road. (As it has been for while) probably for your kids generation to deal with. I think eventually someone has to accept that funding education, health, social care costs.. to me only the lib dems with a 1% rise across the tax board recognise this.

In reply to John2:

On the other hand, she knows how to make money (for a select few), asset strip, drive down costs (such as wages) in order to make a profit (the be all and end all of capitalism). That is what a venture capitalist does I think. Perhaps not the best person to help run a country in the best interests of all the people who live in it.

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Because while some people are unfit for work many others are not.
The idea that disabled people should, where possible, have a job should be championed by all politicians.
The fact that the government wants disabled people to work shouldn't be seen as an attack on those people although some of the tribunals ideas of fit to work are outrageous.

In reply to Lusk:
Working it out isn't as easy as it sounds as there are many variables. e.g.

Is your wife a level 1,2, 3 or Higher Level TLA?
Do you receive working tax credits, DLA, child benefit etc.
I wasn't accusing you of being well off.

In reply to Lusk:


Rolls eyes

In reply to The New NickB:


Foreign investment will fall, domestic investment will fall, consumption will then fall and profit margins will fall. The State will spend more to offset the collapse in private sector demand. Tax rates and borrowing will rise to finance this and so the vicious circle into terminal decline will begin as companies cut back further.

Government finances will deteriorate but the public sector unions will protect their members interests so that the pain will be felt not by the employees but directly by welfare recipients, pensioners and NHS users. Welcome to Corbynland.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


What a weird comment.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Some may want to comment now, I'll wait until you have presented some evidence to back up your claims.

In reply to Postmanpat:


You might be right. Might. We can't be sure. What we can be sure of is that the Tories will continue what they've already done in wrecking public services that we ALL need for the benefit of the already rich.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Doesn't seem unreasonable actually.

http://www.cheltenhamcollege.org/Debating-Victory

In reply to Postmanpat:


We're constantly being told by May that Corbyn is weak and ineffectual, slightly ironic when you consider how poor her and the expensively educated Rudd are at simply talking.

In reply to The New NickB:

You can't provide evidence about the future. It hasn't happened. You can study what Corbyn's Labour really believes and what has happened in the past when such policies are pursued.

Corbyn poses as a cuddly social democrat. He's not and his cronies are certainly not: McDonnell, Milne, Murray et al.They are hardline socialists, in hoc to the unions who would love to reintroduce clause 4 etc. His manifesto is just the opening salvo. They've revealed their instinctive "solution" to any issue, tax and spend. It didn't work in the relatively closed economy of the 1970s.In a global economy when companies, capital and people can move it spells disaster. When the shit hits the fan they'll double up.

In reply to Postmanpat:

The old wolf in sheeps clothing argument, where have I seen that aggressively dismissed when levelled against the current government?

In reply to baron:


Let's remind ourselves just how outrageous, or 'indefensible'...

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/mar/1...

Tory instinct? Self, self, self...

In reply to The New NickB:
>

No idea, but I've no doubt that if Corbyn gets in, in a few years time when another party has to sort out his mess they will blamed for the problems he's caused.

Actually, given that he doesn't much want to be PM I see him more as a Kerensky, who will be replaced in time by a harder line colleague.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


Seems fine to me. Got one or two words wrong. Is that it?

In reply to WaterMonkey:

Well having just downloaded the Labour Manifesto and zoomed to page 86 I can see nothing about this 0.85%, nor can I find it on page 86 of the pdf . Can you point me at the exact quote please.

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

>
What are you on about?

In reply to Postmanpat:


If we hadn't had unions, millions and millions of people would still be tugging their forelocks in the presence of their so called superiors and being eternally grateful for having a shit job and being paid pennies to provide the bowls of gruel they could barely afford to feed their children with.
A bit like Sports Direct, where women gave birth in the works toilets because they were so frightened about taking time off work.

In reply to Lusk:

>
Doubtful. But it's a strawman anyway. I'm all in in favour of unions protecting their workers' rights, but not destroying the companies or organisations that their members work for in the process or of sacrificing their workers for political aims.

In reply to Lusk:


That was a 100 years ago. The unions need to grasp that there are reams of legislation that cover this now.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


Would be close run race if you totalled up the education costs between the two big parties.

In reply to Postmanpat:


There's a clue in the words. Do keep up.

In reply to summo:


Which you can only enforce if you're rich enough to pay the tribunal fees.

In reply to summo:


Yes. we had to come up with the zero hours self employed gig economy so that the legislation could be circumvented. Although apparently Lazy courier drivers enjoy the unparalleled flexibility to be charged for cover if they fail to turn up for work. I think even Lord Moneygrabbers cotton mill missed out on that trick back in the liberal snowflake 1860s

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):


So IDS resigns because he disagrees with Osborne's policy. How does the "self, self, self" bit fit in?

In reply to Red Rover:


I've been saying this for some time now, some of the anti-may stuff on FB is quite vile.

In reply to toad:


It strikes me that heading back to 1860s levels of exploitation is what the Conservative government is all about. The game is to put the maximum possible wealth in the hands of the 'elite', with what remains left used to bribe the electorate with miniscule tax cuts. Just keep chipping away for a few decades more.

In reply to toad:

I will give you that one to a degree, perhaps if the UK weren't obsessed with being able to buy anything 24/7, have it delivered next to immediately companies would reduce these contracts. The more spur of the moment people expect a service, the more spur of the moment employment becomes? I just hope no one here who is against these contracts use companies that employ people on them, wouldn't like to think there are double standards or hypocracy going on.

I don't think Labour could stop them, as they'd just change their model a little. Zero hours isn't that different to agency work etc.. the solution would be removing the demand and change legislation on who can be self employed via hmrc.

In reply to toad:


That was two companies, DPD and, Parcelforce.

“At Parcelforce, around 75% of drivers are employees with the remaining 25% owner-drivers, who are contracted on a self-employment basis. Self-employed owner drivers working with Parcelforce can expect average earnings from £45,000 to £70,000 per annum.”

To extrapolate it to all on Zero hour contracts is ludicrous.

Some interesting facts on zero hours contracts here; https://fullfact.org/economy/facts-about-zero-hour-contracts/

In reply to Big Ger:
I'm on a zero hours contract. It isn't the best.

In reply to Ridge:


Do you actually believe that or did you just think it sounded good?

In reply to Big Ger:

The economics of the situation are not looking good;

UK comes bottom of G7 growth league as Canada takes lead

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/31/uk-comes-bottom-of-the-g7-...

In reply to Lusk:


Your implication isn't always correct.
For example (a bit random but I was reading about it yesterday) when the Hambleden Estate (of the Smith family of WH Smiths) was sold it was discovered that most of the 44 properties were let at huge discounts to the market rate and 5 pensioners weren't required to pay rent at all as people were broadly only asked for what they could afford.

Hardly blood and exploitation of the poor is it.

In reply to toad:


I hope you find something better then mate.

In reply to Shani:

Hardly disastrous, in fact rather good for a nation making such big changes.

The remain campaign predicted a leave vote would cause an immediate and profound economic shock, and that this would drive the UK into recession

In reply to Postmanpat:


I read that as the voice of someone who's been f*cked over and representative of plenty more like him who are being failed by the government.

but it's nice that you empathised with his situation.

In reply to Big Ger:

The remain campaign may have done, I certainly never did. Having said that, a year on, inflation is rising, wages aren't, inward investment is slowing down... But Brexit has given the whole of the existing European economic order a massive destabilising shove; what the consequences will be nobody knows, but unpredictable consequences rarely turn out for the best.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:


I empathise with his situation, hence I only replied to his false conclusion.

In reply to ClimberEd:

Interesting anecdote but are you arguing that this model was actually the norm? Lots of industrialists treated their workers relatively well either because they were decent principled people or because it made good business sense. Lots didn't. The point is they got to choose, not the workers. Without unions the laws we now rely on to protect the majority of us from exploitation would never have been penned nor many of the benefits we take for granted, sick pay, weekends etc and without the support of a union these days it is becoming impossible for many to have these laws enforced against unscrupulous or careless employers.
jk

In reply to Postmanpat:

You can't dismiss that sort of claim at the same time as talking about the "true voice of the left". There clearly is a good segment of the Tory party who don't give a shit about anyone without money or power, as there is a good segment of the Labour who actively despise western power and business. Currently these segments both have a lot of influence in the respective parties, which explains why the election is so depressing.

In reply to Big Ger:
For the same reason many voted Brexit, they were pissed off with what they saw as an aloof establishment, the vote for the Conservatives will be vastly diminished next week.

Many of the comments upthread refer to Thatcher. She was a Conservative from a different era. Whilst many of her polices leave a lot to be questioned, she generally wanted to improve the country. A free economy, she thought, would allow people to rise, and the state was to give them the tools to do that, especially through funded education. Her cabinet with a few notable exceptions, was made up of One Nation Tories.

Fast forward to today, and we have an invariably private educated, Oxbridge government, of which most are independently wealthy. Of course, there is nothing wrong with a private education (actually, I have no time for it but another argument) nor going to Oxbridge, but when it becomes a club, and that club exists in rarefied social and economic atmosphere, waaay above and outside the experience of the man on the Clapham omnibus, then we have a problem.

The country is governed by homogeneous group of millionaires, hand in glove with the billionaires who control the media and perpetuate the self interest.

and there is no way to call them to account, other than through the ballot box.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Inflation still at historically low levels.

http://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/CPI-since-2007-600x...

(Some of us remember it at 25%!)

Wage growth slows

https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_medium/public/thu...

Also;

The UK retained its title as Europe’s most attractive location for international investment, but worrying signs emerged of a decline in the country’s appeal after Brexit, reports The Independent. The country secured its highest ever level of inward investment in 2016 beating Germany, France and Spain, according to EY’s research. A total of 1,144 foreign direct investment (FDI) projects were agreed in the UK last year, an increase of 7 per cent on 2015."

http://www.bmmagazine.co.uk/newswire/uk-remains-top-destination-foreign-inv...

In reply to MG:


Yes. I accept that there are those of each type in each party. I think that the Labour party is now dominated by the type you describe but the Tory party is not.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:



"The new Prime Minister’s Cabinet is 70 per cent state educated, with Justine Greening on Thursday becoming the first Education Secretary to have attended a comprehensive school."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/14/theresa-mays-cabinet-a-triumph-f...

Some 19% of the new House of Commons went to state grammar schools, down from 24% in 2010.
Some nine out of 10 are graduates, and more than a quarter (26%) hold degrees from Oxford or Cambridge, with 28% having attended another Russell Group university."

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=664974&new=8571495#x8571495

In reply to Postmanpat:

That's just your tribalism coming through. The idea that Johnson or Fox or Hunt care about anyone but those close to them financially and socially is absurd. Mostly of course they care about power for its own sake (like May), which is probably worse still.

In reply to neilh:


I think we might be posting at cross purposes. I agree that is something to be celebrated and I think our progress towards more green renewable energy if fantastic, if a little slow.

However, I can still sympathise with those communities who were affected, not just due to the loss of employment but also the reduction in the safety net provided and understand why they hold Thatcher in the regard they do. It does not excuse their actions obviously but I can understand the residual anger.

In reply to MG:

Which is your tribalism coming through. Frankly without knowing these people well over a period of time we cannot know. Everything we understand is seen through a prism of the media and our own prejudices.

In the meantime I'll go with the analysis of people like Paxman who acknowledges that, whatever their myriad failings, very few people become politicians to do harm. I still maintain that there is a major difference between the left's criticism of the Conservatives: that they do what they do because they are bad, and the Conservatives criticism of the left: that they do what they do because they are misguided.

I think there are extremes at both end who are bad but I think I would acknowledge that even when eg.McDonnell supports IRA terrorists it is not because he is deliberately bad. It is because he believes the outcome he wants is so "right" that it justifies evil. It is an extreme form of moral arrogance of course but not deliberately "bad".


Oh, and Boris is an arse.

In reply to Big Ger:

but nearly 50% of the Government went to private school (17% Labour), compared to 7% of the general population, and 1 in 10 went to Eton. Sutton Trust 2015

In reply to Postmanpat:


Which tribe do you think I belong to?



The three I have mentioned we have "known" for quite a while. Boris, I would say, is clearly 90% self-promotion and self-interest. Fox, more just a zealot but his speeches clearly show who he regards as important, likewise Hunt.


I'm sure that's true, I didn't suggest any of the above were wanting to cause harm, rather that they are indifferent to most of the population, and mostly interested in advancing their own interests.

In reply to Postmanpat:

And Fox? And Rudd? And Homeopathy Hunt?

In reply to MG:

Currently, the anti Tory tribe. As for Hunt and Fox; I don't know because I've never met them. I have friends who have heard Fox speak who didn't come away with that impression at all. He has strong views and he may be wrong but that is not the same as being purely self interested.

In reply to Postmanpat:

What! He used taxpayers funds to support his special friend's business interests, he paid his special friend out of his expenses and had the highest expense claim of any shadow minister (a high bar, I think) most of which he had to pay back???!!!

In reply to Postmanpat:


Curious. Not really. Anti the extreme Brexit, selfish, zealot Tory tribe, maybe. I actually want to vote for the "Tory-classic" philosophy but can't, currently



If you can't judge a politician until meeting them in person, politics will be tricky!

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Yup, and we can go through a list of Labour politicians with equivalent failings and Lloyd George was shagging for Britain and Churchill was a pisshead.

I'm not going to defend Fox's actions but they simply don't show that he didn't believe in what he said he believed in and that they would benefit the country if pursued.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Poor misunderstood mites, so badly misrepresented by our rabid anti-tory press. I'll judge them on their words and actions if you don't mind.


I don't believe many if any (excepting openly prejudiced fringe groups) seek office to do harm but I do believe many seek office with a very narrow, often misguided idea of who and how they want to help, the inevitable consequence being policies which cause a lot of collateral damage to those they do not care about and do not engage or identify with. Yes that cuts both ways but personally I find the tory examples the more egregious as the harm comes to those who are already powerless and downtrodden, unable to adapt and survive.
jk

In reply to Postmanpat:


I don't doubt that but did they affect the same socio-economic groups. The issue with Thatcher, as I see it, is that she affected those at the bottom end of the socio-economic scale, those least equipped to cope with the changes she imposed, whereas Foot and Benn affected those further up the scale, whose quality of life might have been affected but they weren't on the breadline. This might have made them angry, but the visceral hate Thatcher seems to get comes from those with very little having that taken away.

I was born a little too late to feel the full affects of Thatcher, Foot and Ben so can only hypothesize, I'm happy to be corrected/convinced otherwise.

In reply to jkarran:


You don't judge them on their words or actions. You judge through the prism of your own views about what those words or actions are intended to do.

In reply to Postmanpat:


THis is pretty much a definition of "judge".

In reply to galpinos:

>

No. This is the nub of the misunderstanding. Of course part of the immediate criticism of the Foot/Benn position was that it directly hit people in the form of higher taxes etc but it was and is much deeper than that. It was that it attacked the wealth creation mechanism and therefore ultimately hurt the very people: the lower paid and those on the breadline that is purported to support.

In reply to MG:


A judge is supposed to be objective.

In reply to ClimberEd:

The exception that probes the rule.

In reply to neilh:


You're not seriously arguing that Thatcher was an environmentalist ahead of her time?

In reply to Postmanpat:
For goodness sake! We all form opinions about the motivation, character and effectiveness of politicians through the information we have, largely from media reports but also other sources. This is judging them and their effectiveness. Pretending you somehow are above all this and have a hotline to their inner thoughts is ridiculous.

In reply to MG:
I don't think anyone who dislikes Corbyn is voting for worse education, health etc.. we would all like them improved. It's his ability to deliver, without wrecking everything else that is in doubt.

More promised this morning on cheaper rail fares. They must be rail gurus, bring them into public ownership, improve them and run them cheaper... what do they know that people who have spent a career running trains don't know.

Every promise he makes involves some spending, much of it substantial. That rich elite can't fund it all. Sadly I think the UK population might buy his promises and come to regret it in a couple of years.

In reply to MG:


I'm saying the opposite: that I generally don't and can't know. Jkarran seems to be thinking that he is judging them objectively. He isn't.

Hence I try (not always successfully!) to work on the basis that they (left or right) are trying to do what they think is "right" and try and rationalise how they can think that.

In reply to summo:

I agree.

In reply to Postmanpat:
You're the one who brought claims of "objectivity" in to this. I would guess jkarran is aware that his views are subjective, like anyone else. That doesn't prevent people forming judgements about politicians. If it was objective we could forget about elections and so on and just appoint the best leader. We could call it a monarchy, or something, I suppose.

In reply to Tyler:


For all her very many faults, Thatcher was one of the first major politicians to understand the problem of global warming. She was probably helped in this regard by the fact that she had a chemistry degree, and knew science when she saw it.
However, her actions with regard to the miners strike and the coal industry had nothing to do with environmental concerns and a lot to do with breaking the NUM.

In reply to summo:


Quite a lot of Britain's railways are already under public ownership. It just happens to be mainly German and Dutch state ownership.

In reply to tony:


Yeah yeah.. . But that does not explain how Corbyn will improve them and lower fares though does it...?

In reply to Big Ger:


Yeah - I ignored a lot of the campaigning and sought economic insight from Macroeconomists who all forecast a slow and steady decline on the back of Brexit!

In reply to summo:


No it doesn't, but it does suggest that public ownership in itself is not a bad thing and is something which is regularly encountered in European rail services.

In reply to MG:

>
It wasn't the way he presented it, but presumably he does.

In reply to tony:


Never said it was bad did I? But it's not free and it's not something the UK has any recent experience of.

Plenty countries in Europe run better and cheaper rail services, but they are subsidised. When he is promising rail user savings on tickets, someone somewhere will pay for it eventually.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Are you and I equally unable to objectively form opinions beyond delusions shaped by our ideologies or is it just us lefties with our weak minds who struggle?

Out of interest, if one can't objectively assess a person's character based on what they say and do, how do you suggest one should? Perhaps by where they're from or how rich they are, how much they look like me... I'll stick to words and deeds if you don't mind.
jk

In reply to tony:

Likewise quite a few are privately owned and work well. Nationalisation is a (very expensive) distraction, that would just cause as much upheaval as privatisation did and probably lead to a worse service.

In reply to jkarran:

>
Do you think you are objective or not?

In reply to Big Ger:

"If this (Labour narrowing the Tory lead,) means that people focus on the election, if it means that everybody turns out to vote, if it means that everybody realises how vital this election is then that for me is a fantastic thing ...

For me it is great that this is tightly fought. It is great that people think that this is a very hotly contested election, because it is. We are fighting for every vote, because the future of our country is at stake."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2017/jun/01/general-election-2017...

In reply to tony:


Yes, that's the point I would have wanted to make had I had more time. It's no doubt the case that a lot of what Thatcher did benefitted the economy in the long run but it was the viciousness and vindictiveness with which it was implemented that had people dancing on her grave. There's also the point that benefits to the economy do not benefit everyone in society equally and the gap between the haves and have nots is perceived to be widening again, after years of it narrowing.

In reply to summo:


So vote for those not even pretending they'll try in case the man who want's to try fails... top notch idea.


That if you don't divert a significant chunk of revenue to shareholders it may be used to reduce prices and/or improve services? I'm sure existing operators know that too but their interest in the business is profit first, service second.


Because we in reality will all have to pay a bit more one way or another if we actually want decent services, the very thing you keep banging the drum for, the key LibDem policy you've vocally supported?
jk

In reply to summo:

The East Coast Main Line was taken back into public ownership in 2009 when the franchise holder gave up. It was run successfully as a Directly Operated Railway until 2015, with a reasonable amount of success. It's notable that when it was old, it fell into the norms of the other privately-operated networks.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/passenger-satisfaction-with-e...

And Transport for London, which looks after the London Underground and overground routes, and the DLR, is publicly owned. Incidentally, for all those who complain that Britain doesn't make anything any more, the Crossrail project is fantastic showpiece for British engineering.

The constant harping on about private = good and public = bad is tiresome nonsense. It's the same with the energy utilities - privatisation and competition were supposed to deliver great benefits to the customer, but this doesn't appear to be supported by Theresa May's proposal to cap fuel bills. Mind you, she'd probably change her mind about that one once the heads of SSE and the like have a chat with her.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Yes, I believe I am capable of objectivity as are you. Not perfect, not always, we're human with lots of hardwired shortcuts and foibles we need to be wary of but I believe we are as humans capable enough for practical purposes of rationally assessing situations, objectively forming opinions.

You hear someone talking on the radio, you don't catch the introduction or recognise the voice/context sufficiently to identify them but you do get a good chunk of the interview... can you with some degree of certainty judge the person on what they are saying, whether you agree with them based on what you know of the world, whether you believe you're getting the whole straight story from them? I can. If you can't then you have my sympathy, the world must be a very dark confusing place.
jk

In reply to Tyler:

>
But it's not. Most measures eg.gini coeffcient show that inequality has moved in a pretty narrow range since 1990 and although it's having a small uptick is still at the lower end of that range.
Even these numbers are distorted by the growth the growth of wealth and income of a tiny subset, probably 0.1%.

In reply to jkarran:

>
I don't think you are objective at all. You listen with a preconceived idea of what you think is good or bad and the motivations behind somebody who doesn't agree with your "recipe" and judge the actions purely within that context.

In reply to tony:

I've heard that the reason the water companies were privatised was because the UK water supply did not measure up to EU water quality standards, and the government did not want to have to borrow the enormous amount of money required to bring water quality up to standard.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Sure but when the vast majority of that moral, ethical framework within which I judge people is shared with my peers what is strictly subjective is also practically objective. Someone beats and robs another person... we can all agree that action is bad. They're subjective assessments we each make but all made within a very similar framework. At the fringes, sure we all have different ideas and our assessments of good and bad will diverge but that isn't what I'm talking about.

Also, some statements do not require a judgement of an idea, they are assertions of fact. If those assertions are false then I will objectively judge that person to be either misguided or dishonest.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

>
You seem to be quite unable to distinguish between means and aims. Your assumption is that if a person doesn't share your means then their aims must be different, therefore the aims must be immoral and therefore that person is immoral.

It doesn't follow. That person may think that your means are counterproductive. It doesn't make you bad. It makes you (if that person is correct) mistaken.

In reply to Big Ger:

A few observations from skimming the early posts on this thread:

Firstly, it's never acceptable to call anyone "Tory scum".

That said, it seems absolutely clear to me that there are some on the right who wear this term as a convenient badge. It allows them to dismiss all contrary opinions as knee-jerk, unconsidered hatred, and thus to deflect scrutiny of their own opinions.

Making sweeping statements about the "hate-filled bile of the left" is as ignorant and childish as calling people "Tory scum".

In reply to Tyler:

I assume that any person now would recognise the environmental benefits of having moved away from it.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Really? I'd be interested to know if anyone else has read that into my posts because I don't believe my thinking is anywhere near as muddled as you portray on this occasion. Perhaps it is. Perhaps my writing is unclear. Perhaps you're wrong.

I do think you are coming across as rather condescending.
jk

In reply to John2:

That was correct at the time.

In reply to jkarran:

>
I'm not sure it's muddled. I think it's wrong. I'm sorry if I seem condescending but much of the time you come across as aggressively offensive.

In reply to tony:

This has been covered before. East Coast even though under puiblic ownership was still run as a private company.

There are also plenty of good franchise operations as anybody who catches the West Coast line on Virgin knows only too well. Having used both I would suggest West Coast is far better.

There are pluses and minuses on rail privatisation.

Labour will not be able to do anything on the franchise's until the mid 2020's when most of the current agreements runout.Something that is often overlooked.

Cost of renationalisng water is approx £60 bn.Power generation is a simialr amount.

Rail is the obvious one to do, with the caveat on expiry of franchises ( otherwise it will be alot more expensive).

These numbers as per the Economist which suggested that Rail only maybe the best option.

The others are just too expensive to buy back without causing economic issues ( higher mortgages etc) elsewhere.

In reply to neilh:


Which is a perfect demonstration to show that public ownership can work perfectly well.


No, the Labour manifesto explicitly talks about bringing private rail companies back into public ownership as their franchises expire.


Why higher mortgages?

In reply to jkarran:


The price of failure? 3 trillion in debt, massive deficit, declining global competitiveness. If Corbyn fails, it wouldn't just be in a littke way.


If Corbyn said he would put up tax in June for everyone to fund his many expensive dreams there would be hope. He some how thinks he can tax a very small proportion of society, to improve life for everyone else. Not the same thing. Plus any increase in money is going to be gobbled up by his union buddies. They aren't bank rolling the Labour party right now without expecting something back.

In reply to neilh:


Are you comparing the lines when East Coast was nationalised? How many journeys did you make on both lines to compare them? What particularly was 'better'?


The big plus has to be that at the moment, soverign wealth funds and infrastructure are using profits from our infrastructure to fund their domestic infrastructure.


So no cost as such then. After which time the government gets a profitable asset. Yippee!


As I understand it, Labour are not intending to privatise power. They intend to enter the market as a 'player'.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Personal slight: As sure a sign as any that all attempts at constructive argument have been thwarted.

In reply to tony:

It works something along the lines of the bond rates would increase, in turn affecting interest rates, which then would push up our mortgage rates.So be careful what you wish for!

As I said rail is the easy one to do and low overall cost. but you would only do it when the franchises run out. So nothing happens until the mid 2020's. thats a long wait for all the promises.

In reply to Shani:

Well that would be interesting on the power side.

In reply to neilh:


Which is what the Labour manifesto says.

In reply to summo:

I think your phone might have swapped 'failure' for 'brexit'.


So putting income and corporation taxes to where they were a few short years back, bringing them broadly in line with those for other comparable countries, that's doomed to failure? I envy your certainty.

His union pals? Would that be ordinary people like me with jobs, people who haven't seen a pay rise in years, people who's living costs are now rising, people who's protections and privileges are about to be eroded because of a choice you made.
jk

In reply to neilh:


Agreed. Quite innovative.

In reply to john arran:

Pardon. He's just told me I'm condescending so I am explaining why, if he thinks that is the case, I don't feel I am in the wrong. It's not meant to be a gratuitous insult. It's an observation about how I find some of his posts.

You're doing the same thing. It's OK for you guys to sound off in whatever way you think fit but a mild rebuttal and it's regarded as abuse. Cognitive dissonance is probably the technical term for such behaviour.

In reply to Postmanpat:

'I'm sorry if I seem condescending but much of the time you come across as aggressively offensive.'

Crikey, you truly are on a back foot at the moment - I think you'd be hard pressed to identify a single sentence of JK's which any reasonable judge of English would deem as either aggressive or offensive. FWIW your posts used to be the same.

I fully understand your argument that two parties might share the same objective, but favour different means to get there. I'm not convinced that Tory plans both past and future were to achieve the same objectives that I would want to achieve. Was BT privatised in a particularly, spectacularly cack-handed manner so that the government could oversea the development of a FFP 21st integrated transport solution? Hardly. Was energy privatised so that there would be a coherent and well-funded plan to meet our energy needs in the future? If it was, that has been well hidden. Was the 'internal market' introduced to the NHS to make it more efficient (hah! In what universe could that have ever been the case?) ... or was it introduced as a way of allowing private companies to take an increasing share of the NHS cake? Are grammar schools being introduced to create opportunities for the poorest and most deprived kids in our society, or are they being introduced for ... well, to be honest I haven't a clue - the only explanation I can come up with is nostalgia.

You may agree that my objectives and worthy and valid; I think there's scant evidence that a lot of Tories do. 'The market will sort it out' seems to be the one ideological lodestar; and that's just, plain, wrong.

In reply to jkarran:


It is work argument, when corporation tax was lowered others went up. If Corp. Tax goes back up it becomes a double whammy on business.


What protection or privileges are you losing? I would be more concerned about a leader being funded by a few unelected union leaders.

In reply to Red Rover:


That's because they've never suffered under any socialist policies.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Looked in any mirrors lately?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
>
Well, in your view it is wrong. But the point you appear to be acknowledging is that privatisation was done because it was believed the said industries would be run better and that State finances would be improved as a result.

I believe that generally that was and remains true. You don't. There is obviously a discussion to be had but it is not a primarily moral discussion (Hayek may beg to differ).
It is a technical discussion about outcomes.

I don't intend to trawl though posting histories to make my point. There are so many people who seem to think that gratuitous abuse of the evil tories is the only right and proper to behave that I lose track. I had him down as one but if not then I apologise.

In reply to john arran:


Yes, depressing

In reply to tony:
and you want to wait until the mid 2020's for the promised nirvana.....8 years away?,,,,,before they can do anything....

In reply to jkarran:


I'm simply pointing out that like a lot of life it is a mixed bag and as you say lots of workers were treated well (irrespective of, or even pre unions) so to generalise that all workers were exploited is a bit steep.

In reply to neilh:

I'm sorry, but I don't really understand what the problem is? Labour are very clear in their manifesto about the timescale. Or would you rather they promised to sort it all out by the end of year?

Politicians are often accused of being too short-term. I would have thought a longer term vision might be something to be applauded, rather than some get-rich-quick fix which can't be delivered.

In reply to summo:


Well I'm sure that'll be offset by the benefit's promised for them by brexit.


Freedom of movement is the one I'll miss most keenly.

I'm intrigued by which unions have unelected leaders? Also why I'd be more concerned about them than whoever the hell it is pulling the strings of our Conservative government? One group exists to enhance and secure the rights of ordinary working people like me, to give the powerless political power. The other... well we can only really guess but I have my doubts they care much for for the needs of people like you and me.
jk

In reply to tony:
When talking about privatisation I have yet to hear them state we will be starting this in the mid 2020 . Have you?

I assume then that the rail unions are happy to wait.

In reply to neilh:


I still don't know what you're quibbling about. The manifesto says:
"Labour will prioritise public service over private profit. And we will start by bringing our railways back into public ownership, as franchises expire or, in other cases, with franchise reviews or break clauses.
We will introduce a Public Ownership of the Railways Bill to repeal the Railways Act 1993 under which the Conservatives privatised our railways."


I have no idea.

In reply to tony:

I read a very convincing article which claimed that the main reason why John Major privatised the railways was so that there would be a major achievement to remember his premiership by, as Margaret Thatcher was remembered for her bout of privatisations. Of course the only thing he will be remembered for in future is his affair with Edwina Curry.

In reply to John2:


That's a little cruel on John Major. I think he should also be remembered for the outstanding legacy of the Cones Hotline. But yes, shagging Edwina Currie ...

In reply to jkarran:


I'm pretty sure Corbyn can spend far money that will dwarf any Brexit impact. A spending restraint doesn't appear to be a word his shadow cabinet use.


In what respect? Has anyone said those moving for employment can't in the future?


Unite, only 11% turned out to vote in total. Len won a majority of the 11% then the other unite worker who opposed him was sacked. Unite are serious bank rollers of Corbyn.

Not saying conservatives are any better am I. But at least with them they want to make money, unions only want governments to spend it.

In reply to tony:
8 years is a long time to start as a priority!

I am picking holes in the view that railways will be immediately naionalised for the benefit of the public. Despite the manifesto...it is simply a long way off...

In reply to tony:

And Back to Basics, which Viz mocked with their Baxter Basics character.

In reply to tony:

You're all forgetting that before John Major THERE WERE NO SERVICES ON THE M40.

It was easy to be cruel about Major. 'So boring he ran away from the circus to become an accountant' was one.

And a caption when he was photographed driving a tank before the 1st Gulf war 'John Major looking like an accountant for whom Jim had fixed it.'

In reply to summo:

We're apparently (May's speech and white paper) having to leave the massively beneficial single market and customs union so as to end free movement. Now she's made a habit of screeching u-turns of late so we can all hope but unless and until that happens all indications are that ending freedom of movement is the crumb we intend to gain from leaving the EU.


So the example you give me of an 'unelected' leader is Unite's before explaining in detail how he was elected [scratches head] Congratulations, this really is 'war is peace', 'ignorance is strength' grade bullshit!


On ordinary working people. I'm struggling to get agitated about that.
jk

In reply to neilh:


Whose view is that? Certainly not that of the Labour party.


What do you mean, despite the manifesto? Yes it's a long way off. Like I said, it's nice to see some long-term pragmatic thinking being applied, instead of the usual quick-fix gimmickry.

In reply to Postmanpat:



The hard left?!?! What's hard left about looking after the NHS and people in dire need?

You only have to look at the manifesto to see it's all doable, I'll be surprised if it can all be done at once but it can be done.

Compare those figures to the Tory ones.... wait, what?

In reply to summo:


How well have the conservative done in bringing done the national debt? Seven years of austerity, which was only going to be two (wasn't it) and we're all in it together, except we're not all in it together are we.

In reply to ClimberEd:


That is a straw man, no one has said that all workers were exploited. However, workers were totally reliant on the good will of their employers. At least some basic legal protections is much better than the pot luck of having a good employer.

In reply to krikoman:
>
On the contrary, as an example, the manifesto spends is not very dissimilar to the Tories on the NHS. Under labour NHS spending would be 7.2% in 2023. (source:Nuffield trust)The Conservatives would be 7.0%. This compares to 10-11% in European peers.

To address the problem through simple unimaginative tax and spend would imply something like a 5% increase in income tax increase across the board, probably more because a Labour government would have to bow to union wage demands and would be reluctant to force productivity improvements.

Multiply this across the board and the costs will crush the economy and the health, welfare and education systems along with it.

In reply to krikoman:
QE has reached £375bn and nobody has batted an eyelid. That money has largely gone in to the pockets of the banks and in to asset bubbles.

Imagine if that money had gone in to infrastructure....

Oh, and don't forget that historically, the Conservatives borrow mote than Labour. Fact.

In reply to Postmanpat:


See Shani's reply above, what about that money be used for infrastructure?

In reply to krikoman:


Some of it could be, although I am confident that a Corbynite government would become addicted to it. Targeted infrastuctural spending at specific points in the cycle is a reasonable mainstream concept.

It doesn't solve the problem that they have to pay for ongoing recurring spending which they want to massively increase. Since they will have crushed the private sector the State will have to print/borrow and spend more and so the downward spiral begins.

In reply to Postmanpat:

The BBC talked about this yesterday. None of the parties met the predicted spending increases for the NHS. All fell short .

In reply to Postmanpat:

Tory governments have been equally addicted to equally destructive economic dogma - austerity, for example, where they have crucified the poorest in society with no noticeable effect on what everyone agrees is an issue, the deficit.

I can't help thinking that below the surface most of us are agreeing here - Corbyn is not a PM of choice, it's not because of his baggage, it's because of who is - a necessary, useful critic and shouty person but no 'make it so' leader who will ever be able to do populism, pragmatism or compromise. And any credibility May had - along with her shambolic cabinet- has been entirely, and rightly, blown out of the water.

Seems to me we all want the same thing - competent government and competent opposition. I would settle for supporting either of those, so long as the other was in place.

In reply to Postmanpat:


You claim CONFIDENCE in predicting an ADDICTION? Based on what exactly?



You claim Labour want to massively increase spending? Details please.


Your rhetoric is embarrassingly unfocused. Now to take the point of printing money, QE is effectively printing money. We have printed £375bn and failed to invest it - it has largely gone to keeping the banks solvent. Please turn your analytical skills to that...let me know your thoughts.

In reply to krikoman:

I thought you were anti austerity? Do you want more cuts, so they can turn a deficit into an actual surplus? Then start to reduce the actual debt. If you look at the charts the deficit has fallen dramatically since 2010.

7 years of mild austerity. The UK is still over spending etc... despite enjoying better growth over those years than most other countries in europe it is still stretched. Austerity could have been a whole lot worse. It might well be in future as more recession problems are unlikely to be far away globally.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Respected (although left leaning) economists predict higher growth under labour's plans. I'm sure there are serious economists saying the opposite - I've not actually seen any - but you probably shouldn't be so sure on this. They're just doing basic macro that's done pretty well since the crisis.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

>
Actually my objection to Corbyn is both his competence and his philosophy: I think socialism would be an utter disaster for the people of the UK. Nor does he have the management or leadership skills to lead a government. May has gone down in my estimation from being "adequate" to being "not as bad as the other guy".(Incidentally, it seems to me that May is trying to divorce herself from the austerity mantra but can't be seen to undermine the whole Tory government of which she was a part.)

If it weren't for their desire to reverse the referendum and the the overwhelming need to keep out Corbyn, the Libdems would be quite attractive but when they're down to Farron as leader they're not really credible.

So, yes, competence would be a result. Just have to hope that May is better then she currently appears.

In reply to summo:


Where to start Debt as proportion of gdp is what matters. Historically this has been reduced largely by growth rather than surpluses - so you don't need a surplus to reduce debt. History is going to judge the tories badly on their econmic policy.

In reply to Postmanpat:

See if we just did scandanavian type socialism. Do you genuinely think that would be a disaster in the long run?

In reply to edwardgrundy:


That's my point the UK has enjoyed better than average growth but isn't out of the woods. If you relied purely on debt/GDP growth at 3% growth how long before debt was worthless... many many years. Plus how much would have been paid interest? Better to at least reach a surplus so you are not adding to the debt, faster than growth is reducing its worth. Another global recession and it will take a lifetime to recover from the mega debt.

Gordon Brown's end of boom and bust was based on the magical growth out stripping their borrowing over time. That worked.

In reply to edwardgrundy:


But that's not what Labour are advocating. Scandi soc. everyone pays and works their way. Corbyn wants that 'elite' 5% to pay for it etc...

In reply to summo:


I was just reflecting on that very point. How about "for the many, and the few"?

In reply to BnB:


Corbyn is more like for the many, funded by the few.

Here with a zero rate tax threshold at £1.5k everyone knows everyone else is contributing to society etc...

In reply to summo:

I don't know if we were better than average - but your comparing to other austerity countries with out the advantage of their own currency. We should have been much better

How much more money have you earned? (That's the balance you need to weigh up)

Silly thing to say, but Brown's mistake was the same one the Tories campaigned for more of.

Not up for going round all of this though

In reply to summo:
I don't know if we were better than average - but your comparing to other austerity countries with out the advantage of their own currency. We should have been much better

How much more money have you earned? (That's the balance you need to weigh up)

Silly thing to say, but Brown's mistake was the same one the Tories campaigned for more of.

Not up for going round all of this though

In reply to summo:

Not sure it's that different in terms of top tax rates. It is different in terms of how much poorer people earn

In reply to Shani:

There is always a bog standard Keynsian case for public sector spending in a recession. The problem post 2008 was that this spending is supposed to countercylical but because Brown had not got close to a surplus at the peak of the cycle, and because the deficit had (unavoidably) ballooned during the crisis, and because bond markets were rabid, Osborne had no room for manouvre even if he had wanted to. He was hardly alone in this. I acknowledge that there is a case that he could have opted for some infrastructure spending once the initial crisis had passed.

The problem with printing money to spend ie. "peoples' QE" is threefold: 1) Corbyn wants to tighten the supply side so the fiscal stimulus will not have the positive impact it might otherwise have

2) It essentially (as McDonnell let slip) ends the independence of the Bof E. It might theoretically be possible for the BOE to dictate both fiscal and monetary policy independently but given above and McDonnell's clear desire to end this independence I doubt it would last. It is a step toward central planning of the economy.

3) The success of the policy assumes that the investments are successful. If not then all that has happened is that a lot of money has been created and put into circulation with no commensurate increase on goods and service. In an open economy with an open capital account that has pretty obvious implications for the currency which in turn begs the question of how long the capital account will remain open.

PS> I'm not clear. the hobbit Wren Lewis doesn't claims not to be an MMTer but shares their view on the irrelevance of deficits. Where is he coming from on this?

Anyway, do you think that peoples' QE is a mechanism to finance recurring State spending?

In reply to edwardgrundy:

I'd say it's a little higher. 50%+ if you earn over around £40k, 56%+ over £55k ish. Plus any unemployment insurance etc on top of that. So many pay 62% on their higher earnings, with the average rate nationally being around 55/56%. Even with this you'll still pay for a trip to the doctor or a&e. Vat is 5% higher too. If you are an employer then what ever your staff pay in income tax, you match. Then if you are unemployed your insurance pay out ends after 9mths and you need to work for 12mths ( pay into the scheme) to earn it back.

Rich to poor difference. Low end jobs pay more. Trade skills pay well(£40/hr for self employed). Start wage for a graduate is higher. But the wages for middle to senior management through to CEO are lower than the same post in the UK would attract.

In reply to summo:

So they have flatter tax over all than what Corbyn proposing, and flatter pay. The idea with Corbyn is that pay will become flatter too, workers rights etc.

My main point is that higher tax and better services is entirely possible if it's what we want to do as a nation. Sure there will be difficulties if it ever happens, but it's not the ridiculous pipe dream made out by sum.