Current Affairs The Labour Party

[NilSatisOptimum]

Lost the plot about 6 months ago. Her and mates do the fight against antisemtism no favours whatsoever with posts like that. Hopefully the next time she goes on a chat show to say she doesn't look like your average Jew they challenge her on that t-shirt rather than nodding along like dogs.

Must admit always had Brenda from Bristol down as much older, goes to show we all hold inherent prejudices...

 

[Blues Harp]

"It's too expensive, whaa whaa whaa....Who's going to pay for this? whaa whaa whaa...It's communism, whaa whaa whaa".

STFU, Thatcher Kinder.

There will be some on here using that argument Dave......He'll bankrupt the UK, like Labour did in 2008, etc etc.......they don't realise that you have to properly invest in things like infrastructure, education, the Health Service etc and not treat the exercise as purely comparable to running a household budget. But...but..where is the money coming from? From the BANKS of course.......where else?

 

[davek]

There will be some on here using that argument Dave......He'll bankrupt the UK, like Labour did in 2008, etc etc.......they don't realise that you have to properly invest in things like infrastructure, education, the Health Service etc and not treat the exercise as purely comparable to running a household budget. But...but..where is the money coming from? From the BANKS of course.......where else?

£800 billion thrown at the banks; £200 billion to replace Trident.

How any of these halfwits have the cheek to question Labour's investment programme I dont know.

 

[roydo]

£800 billion thrown at the banks; £200 billion to replace Trident.

How any of these halfwits have the cheek to question Labour's investment programme I dont know.

I wont bother questioning the figures on Trident, nor the bank bail outs, but the first is spread over decades, and the second was taking some banks into state ownership. The jobs that Trident supports are ultra high tech, and also includes a very long supply chain and attendant businesses.

I have skimmed the Labour manifesto, and what stood out for me were 2 things of note.

First, the spending commitments on bringing back industries into state control are immediate, and then, ongoing. With my minds eye, little actual benefit, other than an idealogical one.

Second, the house building plan is frankly ridiculous and does not sustain the most basic critique of who will build them, and where will they be built.

edit. 1st paragraph is tits up, but you get the point.

 

[davek]

I wont bother questioning the figures on Trident, nor the bank bail outs, but the first is spread over decades, and the second was taking some banks into state ownership. The jobs that Trident supports are ultra high tech, and also includes a very long supply chain and attendant businesses.

I have skimmed the Labour manifesto, and what stood out for me were 2 things of note.

First, the spending commitments on bringing back industries into state control are immediate, and then, ongoing. With my minds eye, little actual benefit, other than an idealogical one.

Second, the house building plan is frankly ridiculous and does not sustain the most basic critique of who will build them, and where will they be built.

edit. 1st paragraph is tits up, but you get the point.

It's not just ideological to bring industries back into public controil: prices can be pegged; profits can be reinvested.

House building - the only obstacle is the amount of skilled people to make the huge leap in terms of houses built.

 

[roydo]

It's not just ideological to bring industries back into public controil: prices can be pegged; profits can be reinvested.

House building - the only obstacle is the amount of skilled people to make the huge leap in terms of houses built.

Profits are reinvested now. And at the moment, the entire payroll of every single company he wants to bring into public control is paid by those companys. He will now be the payer. Like I said, its ideological. Thats it. Zero benefit to anyone else.

And "the only obstacle is skilled people" is the exact point I made. Its a laughable proposition in a 5 year term.

 

[ramacca]

It's not just ideological to bring industries back into public controil: prices can be pegged; profits can be reinvested.

House building - the only obstacle is the amount of skilled people to make the huge leap in terms of houses built.

Isn't that the reason to keep prices down? . A higher percentage of those on low income pay more out on rents/energy etc.. Low rents, low transport costs, low energy bills etc. allows more money in everyone pockets, disproportionately the poor do better from this. Take water Northern Ireland must be the wettest place on the planet but were threatened with drought. Why? Not enough reservoirs which cost money to build and maintain. A big failure of privatised water with profits not being reinvested.

 

[davek]

Profits are reinvested now. And at the moment, the entire payroll of every single company he wants to bring into public control is paid by those companys. He will now be the payer. Like I said, its ideological. Thats it. Zero benefit to anyone else.

And "the only obstacle is skilled people" is the exact point I made. Its a laughable proposition in a 5 year term.

There's surplus beyond what comes back in as income and maintenance and upgrades. Of course there is, else why would private compabies be involved? Train operators for one are pulling in a profit. The other issue is efficiencies and safety. This isn't just taking off one label and applying another.

 

[The binman chronicles]

It's not just ideological to bring industries back into public controil: prices can be pegged; profits can be reinvested.

House building - the only obstacle is the amount of skilled people to make the huge leap in terms of houses built.

Peg prices and profits start dropping, that's before they internally start charging themselves £14 to replace a lightbulb like they have done at the MoD. Then some survey indicates x million miles of cable/pipe needs to be replaced at x amount of billions.

By the way I'm not saying it is wrong to nationalise, more just the fact that it doesn't instantly mean utopia.

 

[davek]

Isn't that the reason to keep prices down? . A higher percentage of those on low income pay more out on rents/energy etc.. Low rents, low transport costs, low energy bills etc. allows more money in everyone pockets, disproportionately the poor do better from this. Take water Northern Ireland must be the wettest place on the planet but were threatened with drought. Why? Not enough reservoirs which cost money to build and maintain. A big failure of privatised water with profits not being reinvested.

Exactly. This cant be spun as sophistry. These differences between the two major parties are vast.

 

[roydo]

There's surplus beyond what comes back in as income and maintenance and upgrades. Of course there is, else why would private compabies be involved? Train operators for one are pulling in a profit. The other issue is efficiencies and safety. This isn't just taking off one label and applying another.

Of course they are in it for profit. So what? From profit comes investment, tax, R&D, recruitment, dividends to shareholders.

Why would a Government owned company have better efficiencies and safety? I just do not see the correlation remembering the utter crapness that public utilities were when I was younger.

 

[roydo]

Not enough reservoirs which cost money to build and maintain. A big failure of privatised water with profits not being reinvested.

I never understood the water board being privatised. Still dont, for the simple reason that it is a pure service industry. New water wont be invented. Quicker water wont be needed.

Its like privatising breathing.

edit. And unless someone will tell me I am wrong, you cant switch your water supplier, short of digging a bore hole yourself. Which seems a bit of a drag.

 

[davek]

Of course they are in it for profit. So what? From profit comes investment, tax, R&D, recruitment, dividends to shareholders.

Why would a Government owned company have better efficiencies and safety? I just do not see the correlation remembering the utter crapness that public utilities were when I was younger.

Privatisation has been a disaster for most people looking to get around in this country on public transport. It's dangerous, expensive, inefficient and wasteful. And it gets propped up by state funds too. Network Rail is state funded and that means the TOC's have a free rider off public cash.

The nationalised railways of the past were allowed to be underfunded and led into decline.

 

[roydo]

Privatisation has been a disaster for most people looking to get around in this country on public transport. It's dangerous, expensive, inefficient and wasteful. And it gets propped up by state funds too. Network Rail is state funded and that means the TOC's have a free rider off public cash.

The nationalised railways of the past were allowed to be underfunded and led into decline.

Hardly travel by rail, nor bus for that matter, but when I have, its actually been the complete opposite in my experience. £22.50 return from Bristol to Llandudno was the last time. Approached the station as the station clock gently turned over to 10.33, the arrival time. Didnt feel endangered neither.

 

[davek]

Hardly travel by rail, nor bus for that matter, but when I have, its actually been the complete opposite in my experience. £22.50 return from Bristol to Llandudno was the last time. Approached the station as the station clock gently turned over to 10.33, the arrival time. Didnt feel endangered neither.

Well, you cant doubt that rail prices have rocketted, and the amount of journeys delayed is legendary. As for violence on and around the railways https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49582512