Home › Forums › Chat Forum › 2019 General Election
- This topic has 6,282 replies, 176 voices, and was last updated 4 years ago by kelvin.
-
2019 General Election
-
RustySpannerFull MemberPosted 5 years agoThe anti nationalisation lobby makes me laugh.
The Tories took utilities that were priceless, things that were classed as basic human rights and run for the benefit of all and sold them for peanuts.
Take profit out of the equation and it’s obvious to anyone not blinded by greed that utilities, education, transport should be managed for the good of society.
Remember society?
Not shareholders.
Everyone.
All of us.
kimbersFull MemberPosted 5 years agoEven this is bobbins though. The cost of nationalising the water industry alone is estimated at £160b – which equates to £5280 government debt per household. If they made water free for ten years people would still be out of pocket – and by the time the unions have got control water will be more expensive than it is now and we’ll also have to chip in for the capital investment required.
Water privatisation has been a disaster,a fair chunk of your water bill goes to service the loans the investment firms that own the companies took out.
we have a great comparison, because Scottish Water is nationalised and has far less debt, considerably cheaper bills, better water quality, and less leaks than in England
And this is all a huge improvement, at the time of its formation Scottish Water’s infrastructure was the worst in the UK, it’s now the best- all this was done by a cheaper nationalised service while the privatised rUK service has seen a decline in water quality, increase inleaks & bills!
http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/globalassets/documents/raise/publications/2014/regional/10514.pdf
Even the FT has been saying the model is broken & customers are being screwed
https://www.ft.com/content/b60e062e-9712-11e8-b67b-b8205561c3fe
English & Welsh customers have been shafted by privatisation & yet johnsons fanboys defend it coz obviously corbyn/nationalisation =bad , whatever the evidence says
Water privatisation looks little more than an organised rip-off
Bills are rising to fund massive shareholder payoutshttps://www.ft.com/content/2beee56a-9616-11e7-b83c-9588e51488a0
greentrickyFree MemberPosted 5 years agoWelsh water has see a massive turn around since being made a not for profit
ADFull MemberPosted 5 years agoBeth Rigby pretty much nails it unfortunately: https://news.sky.com/story/general-election-the-tory-manifesto-is-a-lightweight-document-of-brexit-rhetoric-11869640
All Boris has to do is not shag anything and keep the headbangers like JRM away from any microphones or twitter.
In fact I suspect he could get away with more shagging stories – ‘good ol’ Boris – what a lad’.
BillMCFull MemberPosted 5 years agoJames “Cleverly” is proof that God has a weird sense of humour.
and he’s MP for………Braintree!
frankconwayFree MemberPosted 5 years agoTJ – you’ll be back soon: you can’t help yourself.
If you’re not on here, who else will you disagree with?
tjagainFull MemberPosted 5 years agoI can have an argument in an empty room. I’ll be fine. 😉
However getting exasperated leads me to typing things I should not given I will always remain on a shoogly peg on here.
I will be back but dipping in and out helps my sanity and saves the mods trouble!
NorthwindFull MemberPosted 5 years agorobdixon
Member
Even this is bobbins though. The cost of nationalising the water industry alone is estimated at £160b
When estimated by the water industry, sure.
Here’s the bit that is carefully ignored. Water like most other nationalised industries is so profitable and therefore valuable because it gets tons of public funding, because it’s weakly regulated, because piss-poor standards are tolerated, and because regulatory breaches are routinely fined at a rate lower than the cost of not breaking the regulations. Cost is nationalised, profits are privatised, failure is rewarded. Any industry would be worth a fortune in such an environment
It wouldn’t take a hostile environment to massively reduce the exaggerated value of these industries, simply a reasonable one. Tie funding to performance, enforce the rules that exist, upgrade the penalty structure so that doing it wrong is at least as expensive as doing it right. You know, like we’d already do if it wasn’t all mad.
Of course an actual hostile environment would be easy to arrange too, if they just learn from the past masters…
dannyh
Member
They don’t want to fix it, though. They want to run it down to the point where they can start to sell bits of it off to their mates. Total conflict of interest.
The exact opposite works for nationalization. We’ve seen so many cases in the past where governments have made life difficult for industries and sectors, all the tools are tried, tested and ready. Just turn them around.
vazahaFull MemberPosted 5 years agoCleverley is an interesting example of whatever the exact opposite of nominative determinism is.
crikeyFree MemberPosted 5 years ago… Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses.
moomanFree MemberPosted 5 years agoThis election is the worse I can ever remember. Whether people like it or not, Brexit is the main issue. The opposition parties are all promising to add even longer uncertainty to it by having further votes on it, when the country has suffered far longer than it should have already.
Only the Torys promise to get it done and move on as a priority.Where as really Brexit should have been done by now, and the other important things of concern in this country should be getting addressed: housing; education; NHS, and social care, etc.
I have heard lots of people I know say that they wont be giving their vote to any of them because they are all useless, but that is not going to help either.
Hopefully this is the beginning of the end for the current major parties in the UK, and we will soon get someone with vision and integrity to get behind … I guess 1930s Germany were saying the same!
ransosFree MemberPosted 5 years agoOnly the Torys promise to get it done and move on as a priority.
Which is impossible to deliver.
KlunkFree MemberPosted 5 years agoOnly the Torys promise to get it done and move on as a priority.
That’s nice coming from the people who created the mess in the first place.
kerleyFree MemberPosted 5 years agoOnly the Torys promise to get it done and move on as a priority.
Where as really Brexit should have been done by now, and the other important things of concern in this country should be getting addressed: housing; education; NHS, and social care, etc.
The issue is that while the Tories will “get it done”, or at least claim they have they will then not move on to sort out the things that are actually important because they don’t care about them, as proved by the last 9 years and all their terms before that.
Saying all parties are useless because Brexit has taken 3.5 years and counting is them underestimating the complexities of it and misunderstanding that that the parties are ensuring that crap doesn’t happen (with an impact on those who are now calling the parties useless)
boomerlivesFree MemberPosted 5 years agoTake profit out of the equation and it’s obvious to anyone not blinded by greed that utilities, education, transport should be managed for the good of society.
That would be great. But the huge cost to buy them would be better spent elsewhere. If improvements and re-investment are required the govt should make the companies do it; they are supposed to be in charge.
If anything should be nationalised it’s the big 4 accounting/consulting co.s, They are evil. They are all sucking at the teat of public money, all signing each others expenses, all scratching each others backs, and all getting paid huge amounts with no real oversight.
And no real value.
bruneepFull MemberPosted 5 years ago🤔
We chose Nicky Morgan to go out and defend our manifesto because she was the only one who passed our stringent requirements.
The main requirement being to believe that 50,000 less 20,000 is still 50,000.#goodmorningbritain pic.twitter.com/OUD9zNMw8a
— Parody Boris Johnson (@BorisJohnson_MP) November 25, 2019
kimbersFull MemberPosted 5 years agoOnly the Torys promise to get it done and move on as a priority.
@mooman It’s amazing that after watching the last 4 years of paralysis as we tried & failed to negotiate the easy bit- the withdrawal agreement.That people are still so clueless to think think that the far more complex Future Relationship will magically be easier, when Johnson has repeatedly stated that he wants to diverge much further from EU rules, ensuring that talks will be much, much more divisive & damaging.
Where as really Brexit should have been done by now, and the other important things of concern in this country should be getting addressed: housing; education; NHS, and social care, etc.
It’s taken 40 years to integrate into the EU, are you so naive that you think we could just reverse all of that with a few votes in the commons & a commemorative 50p coin?
stevextcFree MemberPosted 5 years agomooman
Only the Torys promise to get it done and move on as a priority.
ransos
Which is impossible to deliver.
I’m staggered that people actually still believe this promise and what they think “get Brexit done” means.
binnersFull MemberPosted 5 years agoAny trade talks will ultimately collapse due to the inherent contradiction at the heart of it
The ERG headbangers driving this whole thing want to diverge from the fundamentals of the EU project. They want to deregulate our economy, tear up workers rights, re-write environmental standards and change tax laws etc. This goes against the very principles of the single market.
The EU will never agree to this. Why would they?
When the real negotiations start, things will get very real, very quickly
The Brexit people were promised was always a right-wing neoliberal fantasy. Any serious pursuit of it would have a catastrophic impact on our economy
dazhFull MemberPosted 5 years agoIf improvements and re-investment are required the govt should make the companies do it;
And the companies hold out the hand to govt pleading poverty whilst paying their shareholders a fat dividend. You don’t see any conflict in that? Here’s an idea, if the govt regulated so that utility companies weren’t allowed to pay a dividend and capped executive pay until they didn’t need public subsidies whilst at the same time meeting targets for invsting in infrastructure then nationalisation might not be necessary. If privatisation worked that’s what they would do, but they don’t because it’s a broken model.
molgripsFree MemberPosted 5 years agoI find it amazing anyone still thinks we’ll be better off post-Brexit. They have clearly not been paying attention.
kelvinFull MemberPosted 5 years agoWhere as really Brexit should have been done by now
Look, the only people who told you Brexit could be done with quickly in 2016 are the people telling you now it can still be done with quickly. Have you not learned your lesson?! If you want Brexit, fair enough, but please have the intelligence to realise it’s a decade long project. You’ve had three additional years to educate yourself about what is really involved, don’t accept three word propaganda from Cummings and Johnson again… look into it.
kimbersFull MemberPosted 5 years agoExcellent thread by the scarily accurate at predicting political future (check out his brexit flow charts) Jon Worth
Let’s look into the ? beyond #GE2019
— Jon Worth (@jonworth) November 25, 2019
Johnson’s Brexit is just the beginning of a very long painful process
dazhFull MemberPosted 5 years agoI find it amazing anyone still thinks we’ll be better off post-Brexit. They have clearly not been paying attention.
It’s not a question about being better off, it’s about being in charge. They’d rather be listened to and worse off than ignored and better off. What amazes me is that they can have both by voting labour and so far the great british public appear not to want that. Until people realise they’re living in a plutocracy and not a democracy then very little will change.
Watched this yesterday on the deeper problems, it explains a lot, everyone should watch it.
5thElefantFree MemberPosted 5 years agoWhat amazes me is that they can have both by voting labour and so far the great british public appear not to want that.
Being ‘better off’ like the people of Venezuela is less attractive than you think it is.
boomerlivesFree MemberPosted 5 years agoThe Brexit people were promised was always a right-wing neoliberal fantasy.
If it’s so right wing, why don’t labour make a stand against it? A clear stand to stop article 50?
Is it because, as was pointed out 30 pages ago, that the biggest Brexit areas are traditionally Labour supporting?
How does that fit with the theory?
If you want Brexit, fair enough, but please have the intelligence to realise it’s a decade long project.
Jezza says he’ll get a deal in 3 months.
dazhFull MemberPosted 5 years agoJezza says he’ll get a deal in 3 months.
A withdrawal deal, not a trade deal. You know that full well though so stop being a ****. Or maybe you don’t? If not then go away and inform yourself better before spouting rubbish on an internet forum as if they’re facts.
v8ninetyFull MemberPosted 5 years agoJezza says he’ll get a deal in 3 months.
He says he’ll get to the Labour version of where Boris is now in three months. That may be slightly optimistic, but not ridiculous, seeing as the Labour position is much more closely aligned in regard to a customs union etc. Much less painful all round. Following such an agreement, a trade deal should be simpler too.
kelvinFull MemberPosted 5 years agoJezza says he’ll get a deal in 3 months.
I’m not suggesting @mooman should listen to Corbyn, I’m suggesting he looks into what Brexit entails and how long it will take before it is “done” and we don’t have to deal with it anymore.
kimbersFull MemberPosted 5 years agoJezza says he’ll get a deal in 3 months.
Johnson got one in less (well May’s deal &y conceding to the EU on the backstop)
thats just the WA he’s talking about though
and as for actually negotiating a Labour Norway deal & the much closer alignment that comes with it will be far less rancorous & damaging than & much much quicker than Johnsons planned one
binnersFull MemberPosted 5 years agoIf it’s so right wing, why don’t labour make a stand against it? A clear stand to stop article 50?
The people presently ‘leading’ the labour party are the same sort of deluded ideologically driven fantasists as the ERG. They have also spent their entire political careers being fundamentally opposed to the very principles of the EU.
They have radically different agendas, but both hinge on being outside the EU
boomerlivesFree MemberPosted 5 years agoYou know that full well though so stop being a ****
You know when you’ve hit a nerve with a Labour supporter…
And you kind of ignored the other point in my post with your frothing…The issue I have is that is what people will hear from Labour. 3 months and we are done; one way or another. It’s cobblers, just like Boris’s nonsense. But it’s held up as a statesmanlike way to navigate the brexit issue.
It isn’t
Thank you binners; much more sensible
kimbersFull MemberPosted 5 years agoYou know when you’ve hit a nerve with a Labour supporter…
so were you lying or confused about not knowing the difference from the WA of FR?
and your other point also misunderstands the ref vote
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/07/north-poor-brexit-myths
the TOP 5 leave voting seats are all Tory
kelvinFull MemberPosted 5 years agoA withdrawal deal, not a trade deal. You know that full well though so stop being a ****. Or maybe you don’t?
I’m sure Corbyn has made that distinction clear when telling the public what he intends to do about Brexit, yes?
When he says “get it sorted” at every opportunity, he’s not implying it can all be done within a short timescale, is he?
v8ninetyFull MemberPosted 5 years agoBoomerlives – Thank you binners; much more sensible
Well. This should tell you something Binners… 😂
(Although I notice that you have toned it down a tad recently, to be fair…)
dazhFull MemberPosted 5 years agoAnd you kind of ignored the other point
When you deliberately misrepresent (ie lie about) simple facts then weirdly I don’t feel the need to engage with anything you say. If you want people to engage in a discussion, basic honesty would seem like a good starting point.
binnersFull MemberPosted 5 years agoAnd right on cue, as a reminder from a previous era when our politics wasn’t so totally unhinged, Tony Blair states the bleeding obvious
Tony Blair says both the Tories and Labour are ‘peddling fantasies’
boomerlivesFree MemberPosted 5 years agoI don’t feel the need to engage with anything you say
But you did…how odd
The topic ‘2019 General Election’ is closed to new replies.