Still just downloaded Jezza on newsnight to watch on the commute home. See what the man says for himself!!!
Of course like all Keynesians......
Woah woah woah ........... hang about ........ you are well 'off message' fella.
Corbyn a Keynesian ??? You're having a laugh. Corbyn is a hard-left unreconstructed Trotskyite Marxist. Don't you read the Daily Telegraph ffs ?
Or having hit the panic button and gone from [i]"Corbyn stands absolutely zero chance of becoming PM, Tory supporters vote for him"[/i] to [i]"Corbyn probably won't become PM, but let's vilify him just in case",[/i] have they now changed the script again ?
Even by your standards that is a mighty swerve. A gold medal example.....brilliant
At least Newsnight is informative if less amusing
Even by your standards that is a mighty swerve.
So you've decided to resort to talking gibberish 🙂
And just to help you get on message because Tories like you appear to be getting in a panic and very confused with how to deal with Corbyn, let me nudge you towards the script. This Daily Telegraph article should help :
Quote :
[i]"Labour’s sentimental indulgence of the far left has enabled Jeremy Corbyn to crawl onto the ballot paper for the leadership contest"
"For Corbyn is not a serious politician. On the contrary, he is an unreconstructed Trotskyite"[/i]
So Corbyn according to the Daily Telegraph is a 'far left unreconstructed Trotskyite' then, presumably just like two Nobel Prize-winning economists, one a former chief economist to the World Bank, who strongly agree with his economic policies. These Trots get everywhere - it must be a conspiracy !
By the way did you notice that Corbyn [i]'crawled'[/i] onto the ballot paper ? I'm assuming that Liz Kendall didn't - even though she got less nominations than any other candidate while Corbyn received far more nominations than any other candidate.
And just to help you get on message
He swerves here
because Tories like you
He swerves there
appear to be getting in a panic and very confused with how to deal with Corby
He swerves everywhere.
All three comments made up for effect. Cmon Ernie, try a little harder.
Oh yeah I forgot........you're not a Tory supporter ! 😆
So remind us again........you're a LibDem supporter, right? No wait, is it UKIP? Surely not Labour? Definitely not SNP or Green Party? Perhaps English Democrat? Help me, I'm running out parties!
Ah, hang on.........I know..........you are "apolitical"! 😆
That's why you never post on political threads or have a political opinion! I'm sure that you don't even vote in elections!
BTW nice diversionary tactic. It surely beats having to explain the inconsistencies over what Corbyn allegedly represents. And you accused me of "swerving"?
😀 😀
ernie_lynch - Member
Oh yeah I forgot........you're not a Tory supporter !...
Ah, Ernie you're not in the know.
THM is actually Alex Salmond...
🙂
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/07/labour-leadership-election-260-former-candidates-and-members-rival-parties-apply-vote ]And so the process of overturning a Corbyn victory begins.[/url]
It would appear that the labour party are not interested in attracting new members from other parties, and instead only want people who support the status quo and who have never supported or voted for another party. And they wonder why Corbyn is doing so well! 🙂
Another Tory and Daily Telegraph contributor breaks ranks and acknowledges that Corbyn should be taken more seriously.
[url= http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/08/07/jeremy-corbyn-not-wholly-wrong-says-boris-johnson_n_7955560.html ]Jeremy Corbyn 'Not Wholly Wrong,' Says Boris Johnson[/url]
[i]Asked about the surge in support for the leftwing Labour MP, Boris said today: “I think the Corbomania is a very interesting political phenomenon and, actually, one-nation Tories should pay attention to it. Some of the things he’s talking about, some of the analysis, is not wholly wrong. Yes there’s a problem with inequality, yes there’s a problem with low pay."
Boris told BuzzFeed that while he thought Corbyn's solutions were "completely wrong" it would "very complacent and wrong to ignore the truth of some of the observations he is making about ways in which society should be better".
He added: "We should be humble about that. Also I think he probably is getting points for saying what he thinks.”[/i]
They really need to get their act together and decide how to deal with Corbyn - dismiss him as an unreconstructed Trotskyite and guaranteed loser who can't be taken seriously, or someone who "is getting points for saying what he thinks" and making valid observations but ultimately wrong?
Perhaps his own party should decide to handle how his "popularity" first - at this stage it has nothing really to do with the Tories and they have their own issues to deal with - or is the focus on someone else merely another diversion?
Plenty of/most people take the issues rasied seriously - why wouldnt you? It's the solutions, that are in many cases highly questionable and frankly Jurassic, that are (often) the problem. We have done state planning, printing money, incomes policies and we have evidence of the results. Why go down failed routes again? What was it that Einstein said?
I would welcome a completely separate LW party (too much bllx and compromise within Labour) to investigate and challenge new ways of tackling problems that are both global and specific to the UK. At the moment, few politicians have the answers (it's difficult frankly given that there is no easy answer to too much debt) but it is time for innovative not backward thinking.
Bagehot nails it in the Economist this week. There are innovative thinkers in the world who could challenge the mainstream consensus but Corbyn is not one of them sadly. So there is one message, this looks more and more like an opportunity for new thinking missed. And that is a waste, except for the newspaper inches that the surrounding panto helps to fill.
So how are Labour going to deal with this - its their issue first and foremost?
I would welcome a completely separate LW party (too much bllx and compromise within Labour) to investigate and challenge new ways of tackling problems that are both global and specific to the UK. At the moment, few politicians have the answers (it's difficult frankly given that there is no easy answer to too much debt) but it is time for innovative not backward thinking.
^+1 But no hints at what kind of innovative forward thinking you would like to see?
Plenty - I would start with a focus on the supply-side of the economy first though rather than the endless and excess focus on the aggregate demand side. But this takes time and effort and politicians generally lack either...
From Bagehot..
This is radicalism, albeit of a myopic sort. [b]But the wistful prospectus to which it is yoked is anything other[/b]. Mr Corbyn proposes to remove private providers from the National Health Service, return autonomous schools to local authority control, renationalise the railways, reinflate the welfare state and “reindustrialise” the economy. Parts of his speech could have been given at any time in the past half-century. “I was there in 1984 standing alongside the miners,” he recalled, “and judging by the appearance of some of you, you were there with me. Welcome back!”[b] Corbynism, in short, is the choice not to create something new but to shore up an old status quo; of reinstatement over reinvention.[/b][b]All of which gives his whole circus the air of a wasted opportunity. [/b]The MP for Islington North has the attention of many, including young voters otherwise disengaged from politics. [b]These people, surely, deserve ideas responding to the convulsions—digitisation, automation, globalisation—through which they are living. [/b]Others on the left are thinking big about these. Roberto Unger, a Brazilian theorist, imagines a drastically less centralised and more experimental state. David Graeber, an anarchist, has interesting things to say about democracy and power in the age of the Occupy protests. Paul Mason, a British journalist, has just published a book on “postcapitalism”. Bagehot would not vote for the programme Mr Mason articulates, but admires him for grappling with trends like free information (think Wikipedia) and the “sharing economy” (think Airbnb), along with the explosion of data and networks that they symptomise.
[Mason does not deserve the same billing as Unger who IS interesting]
[b]Yet Labour’s supposedly radical man of the moment offers no such analysis. The defensive nostalgia of the grizzled blokes in the pub has consumed a movement that could have been forward-looking and original.[/b]
teamhurtmore - MemberPerhaps his own party should decide to handle how his "popularity" first - at this stage it has nothing really to do with the Tories and they have their own issues to deal with - or is the focus on someone else merely another diversion?
What on earth are you talking about THM?
"Nothing really to do with the Tories"? The Tory press have gone into overdrive over the possibility of Corbyn becoming Labour leader, the Telegraph has even encouraged its Tory voting readers to get involved and vote. The confusion stems from the fact that they don't know whether to treat him as a joke or as a serious threat, they seemed to be veering towards serious threat now.
As for "perhaps his own party should decide to handle how his "popularity" first", it is universally accepted that the Parliamentary Labour Party has been completely clueless with how to deal with the Corbyn phenomena. It's not "merely another diversion" as you bizarrely claim.
Just a few days ago on this very thread I said :
[i]In fact this leadership contest has exposed just how utterly out of touch the Labour political elite is with their own party, never mind the British people.
Jeremy Corbyn's huge support within the Labour Party comes as a complete shock to them, they had absolutely no idea. Why ffs ? How could they be so out of touch with a party which they are fully paid up members of ?
The fact that they are so surprised and shocked exposes the complete lack of inner-party democracy in the Labour Party. And how unconnected and divorced they are from the party they belong to. Is it any wonder that they are disconnected and divorced from traditional Labour voters, and for that matter much of the rest of the British electorate ?[/i]
I am perfectly prepared to criticise the ineptitude of Labour's hard right. As a loyal Tory THM you appear to be more interested in scoring party political points.
Talk about giving the guy a chance, far as I can see the main thrust of what corbyn is saying is lets get the thinking, ideas and democracy back into politics. That takes time to get on people on board and for ideas to develop.teamhurtmore - Member
There are innovative thinkers in the world who could challenge the mainstream consensus but Corbyn is not one of them sadly. So there is one message, this looks more and more like an opportunity for new thinking missed.
Can Corbyn create that environment as leader? Who knows? But it's refreshing that someone is wanting to try and god forbid get away from slickback soundbyte politics and give power back to the grassroots..
Tbh, What I see from Corbyn is the nascent beginnings of a national conversation similar to what we had up here pre-ref. Personally I just hope that manifests itself better than it did up here. (ie. in support en massse for the SNP, I really thought something more diverse would develop, maybe this is part of that and it's a conversation that need to be held UK wide... I watch developments with great interest, As I've said many times, i'm not a nationalist, never will be.)
Whatever you think of Corbyn's policy, he does illustrate perfectly what is currently wrong with the Labour Party.
He is a candidate who appeals to the disaffected Labour voter and the non-voters, and could probably bring them back the missing millions, yet they are reacting to him like he is spreading Ebola.
IAs a loyal Tory THM you appear to be .....
He's off.
That bit Joe is good - let's have debate and new ideas, not flawed ones that have been unsuccessfully flogged to death before. Trouble is there are no easy answers....and certainly few short term ones.
I left out the final accusation from the Economist, they said it was boring. A tad unfair because at the very least it's amusing, yes including (as I also have said many time Ernie) the Torygraph getting into a lather.
Corbyn needs some better advisors quickly though before he gets shredded. His recent comments on state ownership show a complete failure to understand how capital markets work. He currently uses a bloke whose website I have followed for an alternative (!!) take on tax for many years. Good PMs like good CEOs need good people around them, Cornbyn could do better....
Epic, go an check voting patterns in 2015 - labour did well in young, low income and D/Es although they need them to vote more. That is not the problem.
That's pretty much what he's said himself in the Grauniad this morning epicyclo. He's the only one who is actually putting any policies out there. The rest are pointing at him and shouting 'whatever you do, don't vote for him!!!!!" While offering absolutely no reason as to why you should vote for them instead.
Andy Burnham seems to have suddenly discovered socialism (as that's what re-nationalising the railways is classed as Nowadays) and the silence is deafening from the other two Blairite sock-puppets
TBC, the bloke he uses has made it clear that he is not an official advisor. Phew....some hope then.
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/08/labour-centrists-like-me-not-cynics-corbynites-pure-socialism ]the most hysterical, nonsensical gibberish i've heard spouted about Corbyn yet[/url]
And, yes.... you're reading that in the Guardian, not the Daily Mail. A vote for Corbyn would see this country in the same state as Moscow at the collapse of communism, and endorse totalitarianism, apparently.
Blimey..... He really does seem to have Toynbee and co quaking in their £3 million North London townhouses, and Tuscan villas!
yet they are reacting to him like he is spreading Ebola.
You really have to laugh at the Labour Party. The SNP got a huge membership surge, they were welcomed in and a bunch even ended up as new SNP MPs. The Greens both sides of the border got a massive increase in members, who were also welcomed with open arms.
Labour gets a massive surge in members, they're called Tories/Trots/Agitators, told they're not the right kind of member, and their Twitter feeds are scanned for any signs of dissenting opinion that might bar them from membership.
It's hilarious - the one Labour person for a couple of decades to really energise people, and the Labour Party tries to demonise him.
teamhurtmore - MemberCorbyn needs some better advisors
Yes because unlike the other 3 candidate he's really cocking up his bid to be Labour leader 🙄
His recent comments on state ownership show a complete failure to understand how capital markets work.
And yet the City analysts at Jefferies stockbrokers who have analyzed Corbyn's proposals don't make any mention of that.
Epic, go an check voting patterns in 2015 - labour did well in young, low income and D/Es although they need them to vote more. That is not the problem.
It is a widely recognised fact that young people feel disconnected with politics and consequently are particularly reluctant to vote. More generally turnout has been falling for decades. It is a problem.
And btw epicyclo made no mention of "young, low income and D/Es", just the 5 million votes that Labour lost during their 10 years in office, which is obviously a problem - unless you think Labour wouldn't seriously benefit from an extra 5 million votes 😆
binners - Memberthe most hysterical, nonsensical gibberish i've heard spouted about Corbyn yet
To be fair Jonathan Jones makes a living spouting gibberish.
Here he claims that [i]"Wikipedia is a corrupting force"[/i] and that [i]"it is eroding the world's intellect"[/i].
In the last paragraph he compares the rise of Wikipedia with the fall of the Roman Empire. I'm not kidding you.
BTW have you read the comments to his article on Corbyn?
Just read them now Ernie. What a tool that bloke is. Ironically, I bet the beardy one is his MP. Well the article has led to me doing 2 things:
1. Cancelling my Guardian subscription. This was the final straw in their concerted 'Corbyn will usher in the end of days' bleating.
2. Registering as a labour supporter to vote for Corbyn
I'm probably not alone in either
Cancelling a Guardian subscription because of one comment is a bit of an over reaction imo. Lots of people, some with views which are completely at odds with the majority Guardian readers or leader writers, write articles for the Guardian. I suspect that the appeal of Jonathan Jones's ridiculous gibberish is similar to that of shock jocks - it's designed to be deliberately provocative and therefore the more ridiculous the better.
teamhurtmore - Member
...Epic, go an check voting patterns in 2015 - labour did well in young, low income and D/Es although they need them to vote more. That is not the problem.
I should probably have made it clearer that I was talking about the people who have up to now detached themselves from the voting process because it seems pointless, you just get a different brand of peasant crusher.
I may be wrong, but I think that's where the SNP found a huge chunk of their vote (plus disillusioned Labour voters).
Possible epic, we shall see, but I do think that in the panic and because of this legacy of Blair v Left issue, labour are acually missing the point about why they lost. Scotland being a case in point - where Sturgeon has been quite brilliant at being able the SNP in a way that is so divorced from reality. Down here, Osbourne has done the same in a different direction. All quite amusing for the neutral
"Bagehot nails it in the Economist this week. There are innovative thinkers in the world who could challenge the mainstream consensus but Corbyn is not one of them sadly."
Well, where are they and what are they doing? No one seems to have noticed this batch of people who can do better than Corbyn.
Re cancelling Guardian subscription - the comments pages on the Guardian site are plastered with members calling out the Guardian on biased coverage blatantly hostile to Corbyn - its got so bad they had a half baked justification piece running trying to explain why writing hostile articles is really neutral behaviour:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/03/analysing-the-balance-of-our-jeremy-corbyn-coverage
Lots of people are leaving the Guardian because of the hostility being shown to left of centre candidate - mostly because the readership had previously believed the paper itself to be left or at least moderate centre.
Just one person cancelling a subscription or account WILL make a difference if its lots of 'just one person'. The questioning readership has already forced one backtracking piece and a sudden show of a few more neutral ones.
Well, where are they and what are they doing?
Where indeed?
[excuse me mods, sensible edit 😉 ]
I wonder, are any of the other candidates filling halls with a 1,000 people?
Lots of people are leaving the Guardian because of the hostility being shown to left of centre candidate - mostly because the readership had previously believed the paper itself to be left or at least moderate centre.
I am amazed that some long term Guardian readers have apparently only just discovered that their paper isn't quite as left-wing as it purports to be.
Whatever its fine rhetoric when push comes to shove the Guardian [i][u]always[/u][/i] lands on the wrong side fence, without exception.
I would expect its attitude to Corbyn to provide a classic example of that - when Corbyn was just a fairly insignificant and "harmless" MP on the left of the Labour Party he could expect the Guardian to provide him with some sort of platform for his views and fair and reasonable treatment, but once push comes to shove and Corbyn become a threat to the status quote and the political elite, and actually looks like he might achieve something, then he can expect a significant level of hostility from the Guardian.
The Guardian isn't interested in changing society in a meaningful way - only talking about it. That's always been the case.
The irony is that Jeremy Corbyn isn't particularly left-wing he's just a social democrat who hasn't supported Labour's relentless lurch to the right, he's certainly not a socialist like Foot or Benn. However this is still too much for a newspaper as conservative as the Guardian.
Anyway I have always bought the Guardian for its news content, not political comment. But if political comment is important to you it still has a regular column by Seumas Milne who always hits the nail on the head.
Here he does it with regards to Corbyn :
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/05/jeremy-corbyn-political-stitch-up-anti-austerity-labour ] Win or lose, Jeremy Corbyn has already changed the rules of the game[/url]
THM - your thoughts on the "Jurassic" concept of state ownership.
How does that notion reconcile with the fact that both myself and my wife are working for subsidiary companies running utilities and infrastructure in the UK (and several other nations) who's parent companies are (you guessed it) state owned (and foreign)?
Is it not perhaps yourself who is stuck in the past? Our neighbours have more than demonstrated that it's possible to run a profitable and successful state owned enterprise (even we managed it with East Coast) and then use that expertise to run businesses elsewhere.
That Jonathan Jones piece is terrible. There are key claims about his travel to Russia that I simply do not believe. I note that it is very vague about the date on which he travelled to Russia.
Hopefully not the one that the EU ruled enjoys unfair advantages that distort competition or which bids for projects below its cost of capital etc. But be careful about mentioning your employers round here, people are very uncomfortable with their profits going back overseas. How very dare they.
When is cast flow expected to be positive - 2018 is it?
The Telegrapgh and its readers woukd love to see Corbyn elected as leader of the Labour party as he cannot possibly win a general election. A few articles pointing out how dangerous he would be if he where in power is consistent with their message.
I see also he's offended numerous victims of IRA violencs by refusing to condem their campaign of violence. Not surprisng from someone who took money from Hamas to pay for his visit to Gaza
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11792195/Labours-biggest-donors-pledge-to-stop-giving-cash-if-economically-illiterate-Jeremy-Corbyn-wins-race.html ]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11792195/Labours-biggest-donors-pledge-to-stop-giving-cash-if-economically-illiterate-Jeremy-Corbyn-wins-race.html[/url]
It will be interesting to see if the people surging to support Corbyn will put their hands in their own pockets to cover the gap in financing that his gaining the leadership will create - are they socialist with their own money, or just other people's ?
Glad to see the FT has been following this thread
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e81c7154-3bae-11e5-8613-07d16aad2152.html?siteedition=uk
The top and tail bits have it....
It’s going to be a wildly entertaining ride with loads of laughs. Unless, of course, you are one of those underprivileged types who actually needs there to be a viable alternative to the Conservatives, in which case it won’t be much fun at all — strictly speaking.
It will be interesting to see if the people surging to support Corbyn will put their hands in their own pockets to cover the gap in financing that his gaining the leadership will create - are they socialist with their own money, or just other people's ?
it's remarkably depressing that elections in the UK are such that a social democratic candidate won't win - not because voters wouldn't vote for him, but because his party can't rely on funding from a small group of wealthy capitalists that's needed to win the election
it's remarkably depressing that elections in the UK are such that a social democratic candidate won't win - not because voters wouldn't vote for him...
So how do elections in the UK work then?
Which one is the social democratic - the last lot who used that name seem quite different?
squirrelking - MemberTHM - your thoughts on the "Jurassic" concept of state ownership.
teamhurtmore - MemberHopefully not the one that the EU ruled enjoys unfair advantages that distort competition or which bids for projects below its cost of capital etc. But be careful about mentioning your employers round here, people are very uncomfortable with their profits going back overseas. How very dare they.
When is cast flow expected to be positive - 2018 is it?
And he completely avoids answering the question.
Instead of mindlessly repeating parrot fashion what you read in the Tory press perhaps you could give the issue some thought and explain what you mean by "Jurassic" ?
Or don't you know ?
If they vote him as party leader I can see another Tory term.
How can he appeal to the aspiring working class or middle- class wannabe's?
I'd seriously consider Burnham as a swing-voter
Damn, beaten by Ernie.
Yeah, mind answering my questions rather than playing a guessing game as to who I work for (we work for seperate companies anyway BTW).
jambalaya - MemberI see also he's offended numerous victims of IRA violencs by refusing to condem their campaign of violence.
Except for the bit where he did. "I condemn all bombing"
jambalaya - MemberNot surprisng from someone who took money from Hamas to pay for his visit to Gaza
Or, not. He received money from Interpal, not from Hamas. As I am sure you know.
Still, I like how fast you move- going from
jambalaya - MemberIf it's proven he took money from Hamas,
4 days ago, to "he took money from Hamas" now.
Jurassic (sic)
"[i]I see also he's offended numerous victims of IRA violence by refusing to condemn their campaign of violence. Not surprising from someone who took money from Hamas to pay for his visit to Gaza[/i]"
Corbyn has said negotiation is the key to improving relationships (my paraphrasing there). In my own view its obvious if you want to get meaningful dialogue going to break a stalemate and achieve any progress, its pretty clear that going in with hostile comments is not going to encourage constructive talks from the other side. Its not about shouting out the rights and wrongs, its about trying to find a solution in desperate situations - often the only way to stop even more people from dying.
"[i]How can he appeal to the aspiring working class or middle- class wannabe's?[/i]"
Maybe they would like a home or at least somewhere they can afford to live or healthcare for themselves or their kids, or maybe support for their elderly relatives so they don't have to resign well paying jobs to look after them? Or maybe some people are just not utterly selfish and self obsessed and therefore want society to be somewhat more fair and kind to the vulnerable.
"[i]It will be interesting to see if the people surging to support Corbyn will put their hands in their own pockets to cover the gap in financing that his gaining the leadership will create - are they socialist with their own money, or just other people's ?[/i]"
"Cash pours in to left-winger's Labour leadership campaign, with target to raise £50,000 in 50 days exceeded in less than two weeks" Telegraph headline.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11784374/Jeremy-Corbyn-raises-100000-in-crowdfunding-campaign.html
Its very interesting where the other candidates get their campaign funds from (same article)and how much they have recieved:
" Andy Burnham declared more than £130,000 in donations, including £20,000 from green energy company and previous Labour donor Ecotricity.
Yvette Cooper had received more than £80,000, including £50,000 from Ken and Barbara Follett, while Liz Kendall had received about £36,000 including £10,000 from Lord Hollick."
They would be socialist with their own money as many voters, surprisingly to you, actually pay tax. Also no socialist party can spend any government money unless it is voted into government by a dominantly large section of the general population (ie democratically elected). I can only presume that those who resent using pooled money for general good float over road surfaces, never go anywhere with street lamps, never use any public education services and never get sick - given the results of pooled resources are so unworthy.
ONLY A FEW DAYS LEFT to sign up to vote in the Labour leadership campaign - whoever you want to vote for.
If you want to DONATE TO CORBYN or check how much he has raised from donations to his campaign given by the general public, its here:
https://jeremyforlabour.nationbuilder.com/donate
(£114,595.00 raised at time of posting this)
"it's remarkably depressing that elections in the UK are such that a social democratic candidate won't win - not because voters wouldn't vote for him...
So how do elections in the UK work then?
Which one is the social democratic - the last lot who used that name seem quite different?"
1) apparently the concern is that a candidate without very wealthy people backing him would lose the election.
2) the social democratic candidate would be Corbyn
1) apparently the concern is that a candidate without very wealthy people backing him would lose the election.
Well if that is the case then we get the politicians that we deserve. Are voters really that passive? Are they incapable of independent thought and action? Personally I prefer to give voters more credit.
SQ sorry if not clear. It's very simple. There are better models for allocating scare resources. We have long histories showing that to be the case. At its simplest, we have a starting point called contestable markets. But sorry if I am not in favour of companies that thrive on distorted markets and who take on work that gives returns well below their cost of capital. That's hardly a model of success but good luck if they pay your salaries
SQ sorry if not clear. It's very simple. There are better models for allocating scare resources.
So basically you don't agree with UK state owned companies, the "Jurassic" jibe with regards to nationalisation was merely something which you threw in because you've heard the Tory press use it, you can't actually explain why it is an appropriate term to use.
Never mind, can you perhaps explain why it is appropriate for a French state owned company to own a significant share of the UK energy market, for example, but not a UK state owned company ?
Is he a sinn fein/ira apologist then?
Ernie - See also German energy markets, Chinese energy markets, German rail markets, Spanish rail markets, UK facilities management markets, UK rail markets etc.
But it's okay, we hold the moral high ground by selling all our national infrastructure assets to those same state owned companies. Lol.
Because I am neither myopic nor a xenophobe - I have no problem with Tata and Nissan owning car production, foreigners owning the biggest slug of Scottish whiskey or oil and love the great Polish builders over here. Welcome the lot of them. Free movement of capital, labour, goods and services ticks the boxes.
And particularly good to have French enegry companies invest in facilities that will generate returns well below their cost of capital. More fool them and we are the winners as we allocate our resources to better returns. Welcome those muppets with open arms......
Or are we going back again to the 1970s and the crass and doomed Buy Briish BS?
SQ pls go and compare the difference between Scottish GDP and GNI and then tell me about foreign ownership. Good or bad?
And particularly good to have French enegry companies invest in facilities that will generate returns well below their cost of capital.
What, may I ask, are you basing such profound bovine effluent upon?
I have no problem with the companies you mention either, not sure where you get the impression i was suggesting such a thing considering neither Nissan nor Tata are state owned.
Iberdrola, EDF Energy, Abellio, Deutsche Post, Deutsche Bahn are and seem to be doing just fine over here so I'll ask you again, why is nationalisation bad?
Wait a minute, will you make up your mind? You are in favour of Nissan and Tata but think foreign ownership of assets is bad. But so is nationalisation. So what? Sell it to the Phoenix group for them to make good again?
Ernie - See also German energy markets, Chinese energy markets, German rail markets, Spanish rail markets, UK facilities management markets, UK rail markets etc.
Yes I know squirrelking I was only using EDF as an example as it is the most glaring one and one which most people are aware of, EDF didn't even bother changing its name for its UK operations ffs, at least SNCF operates under a different name in the UK!
BTW it's not widely known that when the legislation for the privatisation of the railways was drawn up there was a clause which specifically excluded BR from any franchise tendering.
The only company in the UK to have any experience in running a railway was specifically excluded by law from tendering for any of the franchises.
All other companies, including companies without any experience in running railways whatsoever and foreign state owned companies, had a right to tender.
The whole exercise has only ever been an expensive tax-funded Tory ideological farce. Which helps to explain the widespread support for the renationalisation of our railways.
I know the difference between GDP and GNI is skewed which is why I'm so in favour of nationalisation. You seem to be taking this waaay off course, I was using these companies as examples of where nationalisation has worked fantastically. You on the other hand...
...I have no idea what you're talking about actually.
Understanding investment maths! Not something dear French SOEs are good at.
And Germany??? How many state owned companies in the leading Gemam companies - answer the number, places them at the low end of the globa scale, German success is not founded there. Far from it
But if it does pay your wages (who knows) then jolly good.
Better models for allocating scarce resources. Really not that difficult. But obviously it's not one or the other as the world around us tells us. It's balance.
...I have no idea what you're talking about actually.
I am aware of that.
Actually now I have no idea where this is going. I do agree with you though that the whole process of denationalisation seriously screwed us over.
Plenty of companies have floundered whether state or prvately owned, writing off state ownership as failed because some have failed is a very flawed logic.
Look at the Panama canal.
Private French company - failed
Public US state owned comapny - succeeded (albeit via gunboat diplomacy)
Conversely the same man who failed in Panama had triumphed in Suez.
Better tell the Chinese, they have been rushing to do it. In fact co-incided with their growth acceleration. Quick, it's a big mistake. Re-nationalise before its too late.
squirrelking - Member
I know the difference between GDP and GNI is skewed which is why I'm so in favour of nationalisation
So nationalise the oil assets, nationalise Diageo and Pernod Ricard's assets. Brilliant
Is that the same Chinese who's nationalised companies are investing in our new nuclear build? Hmm.
Nationalisation allows us to invest in capital projects that private investment won't touch because the return isn't quick enough without serious incentives.
Actually now I have no idea where this is going.
I can give you a clue :
teamhurtmore - MemberAnd particularly good to have French enegry companies invest in facilities that will generate returns well below their cost of capital. More fool them and we are the winners as we allocate our resources to better returns. Welcome those muppets with open arms......
From past threads I can tell you that THM will argue that EDF, the largest electricity supplier in the world, are a bunch of suckers getting shafted by UK consumers.
^lol
As said:
And particularly good to have French enegry companies invest in facilities that will generate returns well below their cost of capital.
What, may I ask, are you basing such profound bovine effluent upon?
He - back to the topic - will be suggesting nationalising education next and we know what a great job governments do in tha field too. Oh hang on...
He - back to the topic
Sounds more like "let's change the topic" to me.
But anyway........if you want to go back...........I was under the impression that during the Jurassic era everything was privatised. You know different THM?
This is the crux of the whole nationalisation problem. People complain that nationalised companies where in efficient and didn't work, well aye, you give something a monopoly on something and that tends to happen. I don't understand why we don't allow state owned companies to work in the market, so that they have competition.ernie_lynch - MemberBTW it's not widely known that when the legislation for the privatisation of the railways was drawn up there was a clause which specifically excluded BR from any franchise tendering.
Under those conditions there's no reason why nationalisation couldn't work imo. If it fails, well there's the market waiting to come in and take over..
*cough*East Coast*cough hack*British Energy*splutter*
But anyway, THM still hasn't answered the question.
Joe, the principle of contestable markets is kind of on those lines - ok not exactly p, but close. far more sensible.
Here you go squirrel - better alternatives. Simple enough?
Bonne nuit especially to all those lovely people at EDF. Now how do we close down Fettes.......
Is he a sinn fein/ira apologist then?
1) No
2) Better than being a Blair apologist like the other candidates. He's killed a lot more people.
Nationalisation allows us to invest in capital projects that private investment won't touch because the return isn't quick enough without serious incentives.
Hmm, EDF, Nuclear power station building in the UK, with extra Chinese "investment", getting a special rate on their returns as an incentive to build = UK population shafted once again.
People complain that nationalised companies where in efficient and didn't work, well aye, you give something a monopoly on something and that tends to happen. I don't understand why we don't allow state owned companies to work in the market, so that they have competition.
Under those conditions there's no reason why nationalisation couldn't work imo. If it fails, well there's the market waiting to come in and take over..
The big issue there being that you have to ensure a level playing field - so the government has to recoup loans made to nationalised industries for capital investment at market rates, which takes away a large part of the advantage of lower costs available to the nationalised sector.
The other bid issue to consider is what happens when those nationalised industries [b]do[/b] get into trouble, as the temptation is there for government to meddle to prevent large scale job losses etc. which they inevitably can't resist the temptation of.
Little know example being the Coal industry under Nationalisation, which in the Sixties had huge government debts (£ hundreds of millions) from the cost of purchase written off because of the costs of servicing the debt, then went on to have the costs of restructuring in the sixties met by government, and then more debts written off in the seventies.
Well the Eu has very clear objectives in terms if national freight and passenger markets - open them up to as much cross-border competition as possible. So a nice little conundrum for Jeremy to get his head around.
Details, details....
Details, details....
What's that reference to THM.........your inability to answer direct questions ?
Or having slept on it have you now thought of an explanation to explain why it is ok for French and German state owned companies to tender for UK rail franchises but not for UK state owned companies to do so ?
You might like to patronize Corbyn with comments like [i]"So a nice little conundrum for Jeremy to get his head around"[/i] but it's you that can't answer simple questions.
The other bid issue to consider is what happens when those nationalised industries do get into trouble, as the temptation is there for government to meddle to prevent large scale job losses etc. which they inevitably can't resist the temptation of.
Didn't stop them bailing out the banks did it?
Little know example being the Coal industry under Nationalisation
There are loads of modern examples of the govt being involved in propping up businesses whether it's bank bailouts or subsidising low pay through tax credits, workfare etc. I fail to see why a modern model of state ownership couldn't work. Is it really beyond the brightest minds in the treasury and BIS to figure out some way of common ownership of key infrastructure where operation and investment can be planned strategically without private investors creaming off the profits?
.....without private investors creaming off the profits?
WTF?
WTF?
Indeed. Bit of a radical idea. I'm obviously a communist. 😀
Yes Diaz, but in addition to championing cross-border competition in the rail market the EU have strong views on state aid too, especially if it distorts competition. So two powerful EU forces against rail nationalisation.. Still that's all in the details that politicians like to gloss over as we saw with a disregard for how capital markets (pre-emptive rights, takeover panel etc) work in practice. Still if you view them merely as casinos, you might be forgiven for not knowing how they work.
Scratches beard in confusion.....
Still if you view them merely as casinos
Super Casino's even.. <cough>Andy Burnham</cough>
Surely anything's got to be better than just to continue handing billions of pounds a year of taxpayers money to grinning, subsidy-hoovers, like....
[img] 
[/img]
No wonder he's grinning, as he buggers off to build himself another space ship. This is the man who referred to the West Coast Main line - the private monopoly run be himself - as [i]'a licence to print money'[/i]
All these people saying that what Corbyn is proposing is tantamount to communism, should note that every survey of peoples attitude to the railways always has a massive majority, even among Tory voters, saying they should be returned to public ownership