Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 11:12:35 GMT
"The unredacted reports Corbyn is branding has been seen by Guido and doesn’t mention the NHS at all. Guido understands the unredacted documents were found on Reddit. With document 1 not even mentioning the NHS, document 2 even shows the NHS is heading for cheaper drugs under a US-UK trade deal "  order-orderWill be interesting to see what comes of it from the press as they scour through the docs.
Seems a bit like a panic mode/diversion tactic so far from Labour who haven't really said anything than make a few vague accusations
The documents show that Corbyn has been telling lies yet again. On the tv debate he said that the "documents showed an offer of “full market access for US products” – these documents prove no such phrase exists." Not only that but these initial discussions took place during the May era, and Corbyn labels them as a Johnson/Trump alliance. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 11:28:04 GMT
So the correlation between nationalisation and union power is caused because nationalisation effectively means there is only supplier of the utility and so, if the union decides to strike that utility is out of action completely with no alternative? Sounds fairly obvious but I’ve never seen the link between nationalisation and union power explicitly stated and like I say, I wasn’t around at the time. Thankfully, I guess You are correct. There is another aspect to Nationalisation, and once again we can use 'British Broadband' as an example. Currently, there are a number of private companies all competing to supply the same thing, broadband. The competition means that they work hard to deliver a good service. They strive to bring the latest innovations to the market, because they want your custom and your money for that product/service. If you bring all these companies under one roof, and call it British Broadband you instantly remove all the drivers needed to make a company successful. With no competition there is no drive to deliver the latest tech innovations. There is no need to deliver good customer service, after all, where else can the customer go? You then give your product away for free and it doesn't matter if the company makes a profit or not as the taxpayer will cover any losses. That is what happens with Nationalised companies. Sh1t products, sh1t service and losing money that is covered by the taxpayer. Those of us of a certain age have seen it all before. As a young 'un you will have noticed that there is not a single person on this forum, even those who support Labour, shouting out how good the old Nationalised companies were. Not one. Yeah that’s the ultimate issue with socialism/communism from what I understand - if everyone is equal there is no driver for innovation and society stagnates. Makes a lot of sense. Good point about how even people who are Labour supporters are not in favour of nationalisation. I just never understood why nationalisation was synonymous with union power but now the connection has been made explicit I see why that is the case and also why there is no workable compromise to make such a system work. I’d like to think there is some master plan to stop this from happening under the new nationalisation plans because I can’t believe that any party would want to go down that route knowing that vital services could essentially be taken hostage by their workers...but *if* there is one Labour obviously aren’t elaborating on what it is. It would be absolutely mad to risk electricity strikes without a plan. Strewth... Although I will say that it seems to me the rail network could still be a candidate for nationalisation in the sense that it’s hard to run competing operators do to the nature of the network. Companies have to bid to operate on segments of the network etc. But it seems like they operate more as cartels with the price hikes and it’s arguable that Southern have been running like a nationalised rail company as it is in the way that commuters have been left high and dry by constant strikes because of the whole phasing out of guards to carry out safety checks (or whatever it was about). If the state was in charge of the Southern rail/Sussex section of the rail network I don’t see how it could be any worse! I presume fares for the passenger would be cheaper but there is a hidden cost in that the saving for the passenger goes straight back in via an increase in tax for that same passenger to keep the service running? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 11:33:40 GMT
Nobby is right, the nationalised industries were shocking.
I moved to America in 1982 and when I moved in to our first house I applied for a phone line, so I rang Southern Bell.
You can imagine my utter shock, having moved back to the UK in 1977 and had to wait 9 weeks for a phone line, when the operator said
"Right, here is your number"
I said, "Oh, right. When will that be available?
Operator "when you go home home, plug your phone in, its live now"
The point is, nationalisation should not be on the agenda. The Labour Party are utterly wrong over this. It's purely ideological, and things like this have cost them the election, along with having an utter twat, thick as two short planks, as a leader.
Pity, because Health, Housing, Education and Social Care need sorting.
But an equally ideological Tory Party have no policy to do so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 11:45:06 GMT
To 365
"Good point about how even people who are Labour supporters are not in favour of nationalisation. I just never understood why nationalisation was synonymous with union power but now the connection has been made explicit I see why that is the case and also why there is no workable compromise to make such a system work."
As you say you are far younger than most of us, well me anyway, I hope you vote, and vote with your conscience and conviction.
The thing is with economic policy capitalism is the worse system in the world, apart from all the rest (to paraphrase)
Capitalism is the only way, and we must on occasion tolerate it even when it goes wrong (to excess). What a government, any government should do is deliver laws that help ameliorate excess and improve income distribution through a fair and consensual tax system
This need not be monetary, but through services.
Labour cannot do this as they are currently constituted and the Tories are ideologically opposed to doing this.
Make your (informed) choice
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 13:52:51 GMT
Nobby is right, the nationalised industries were shocking. I moved to America in 1982 and when I moved in to our first house I applied for a phone line, so I rang Southern Bell. You can imagine my utter shock, having moved back to the UK in 1977 and had to wait 9 weeks for a phone line, when the operator said "Right, here is your number" I said, "Oh, right. When will that be available? Operator "when you go home home, plug your phone in, its live now" The point is, nationalisation should not be on the agenda. The Labour Party are utterly wrong over this. It's purely ideological, and things like this have cost them the election, along with having an utter twat, thick as two short planks, as a leader. Pity, because Health, Housing, Education and Social Care need sorting. But an equally ideological Tory Party have no policy to do so. That’s a good summation of how I see it right now. I don’t think I could bear another 5 years of the Tories but I fully appreciate now quite why Labour are so unelectable. I want to like Corbyn as a character as I get the impression that he does want to help everyone more so than the Tories do but he seems to have gone off the deep end with the left wing stuff and people can’t buy into it and after hearing that nationalisation goes hand in glove with strikes I can’t buy into it myself. Plus as I said earlier his credibility is somewhat shot hearing that he.’s got something like a 4 million fortune and his tax policy avoids an MPs income. I just hope this doesn’t force a shift totally the other way and they start encroaching on the Lib Dem’s territory after this election. It would be good to a see a competitive left leaning Labour with a credible leader...I’m not sure it.’s possible for such a thing to exist. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 13:59:32 GMT
Nobby is right, the nationalised industries were shocking. I moved to America in 1982 and when I moved in to our first house I applied for a phone line, so I rang Southern Bell. You can imagine my utter shock, having moved back to the UK in 1977 and had to wait 9 weeks for a phone line, when the operator said "Right, here is your number" I said, "Oh, right. When will that be available? Operator "when you go home home, plug your phone in, its live now" The point is, nationalisation should not be on the agenda. The Labour Party are utterly wrong over this. It's purely ideological, and things like this have cost them the election, along with having an utter twat, thick as two short planks, as a leader. Pity, because Health, Housing, Education and Social Care need sorting. But an equally ideological Tory Party have no policy to do so. That’s a good summation of how I see it right now. I don’t think I could bear another 5 years of the Tories but I fully appreciate now quite why Labour are so unelectable. I want to like Corbyn as a character as I get the impression that he does want to help everyone more so than the Tories do but he seems to have gone off the deep end with the left wing stuff and people can’t buy into it and after hearing that nationalisation goes hand in glove with strikes I can’t buy into it myself. Plus as I said earlier his credibility is somewhat shot hearing that he.’s got something like a 4 million fortune and his tax policy avoids an MPs income. I just hope this doesn’t force a shift totally the other way and they start encroaching on the Lib Dem’s territory after this election. It would be good to a see a competitive left leaning Labour with a credible leader...I’m not sure it.’s possible for such a thing to exist. Welcome to 1997. We had hope then. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 14:06:26 GMT
To 365 "Good point about how even people who are Labour supporters are not in favour of nationalisation. I just never understood why nationalisation was synonymous with union power but now the connection has been made explicit I see why that is the case and also why there is no workable compromise to make such a system work." As you say you are far younger than most of us, well me anyway, I hope you vote, and vote with your conscience and conviction. The thing is with economic policy capitalism is the worse system in the world, apart from all the rest (to paraphrase) Capitalism is the only way, and we must on occasion tolerate it even when it goes wrong (to excess). What a government, any government should do is deliver laws that help ameliorate excess and improve income distribution through a fair and consensual tax system This need not be monetary, but through services. Labour cannot do this as they are currently constituted and the Tories are ideologically opposed to doing this. Make your (informed) choice That’s my issue with Tory politics essentially- the controlling of excess. The economics primer I’m reading at the moment is pretty condemning of how The likes of Thatcher enabled excess by de-regulating the financial markets after some careful work had been done post World War II to develop a system that kept the financial system of each western country balanced whilst still providing growth. Now we have reached a period of rampant capitalism and it coincides with that damning UN report about the scale of inequality in the country after a decade of austerity. Eric made the point about dole scroungers abusing welfare and the like and whilst I wouldn’t disagree that there undoubtedly some feckless people about I think this land is in a bad place when *working people* have to use food banks and need social security support because a low wage just isn’t enough to house and feed them anymore. That absolutely *must* be addressed- do I trust the Tories to do so? Absolutely not, no matter what election pledge they make I’ll believe it when I see it. It’s just not good enough to have that particular problem in a country where the financial sector has assets equating to some 500 x it’s GDP. So I’m back to wanting a “no confidence” option on the voting slip, preferably with a box for comments to explain that I lean more towards Labour but they are making themselves unelectable. |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Nov 27, 2019 14:08:08 GMT
Will be interesting to see what comes of it from the press as they scour through the docs.
Seems a bit like a panic mode/diversion tactic so far from Labour who haven't really said anything than make a few vague accusations
The documents show that Corbyn has been telling lies yet again. On the tv debate he said that the "documents showed an offer of “full market access for US products” – these documents prove no such phrase exists." Not only that but these initial discussions took place during the May era, and Corbyn labels them as a Johnson/Trump alliance. This is the sort of utter bullshit that totally undermines trust .The US as you would expect have put and want everything on the table for discussion in a trade deal,as would we,that doesn't mean we agree it's the starting point for a negotiation indeed the UK government has not yet responded. This is bog standard tactics in any negotiations and for Labour to suggest it's been agreed is an outright lie that does them no credit. God help any Party that sells out the NHS to the US,they would be unelectable for decades. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 14:09:03 GMT
That’s a good summation of how I see it right now. I don’t think I could bear another 5 years of the Tories but I fully appreciate now quite why Labour are so unelectable. I want to like Corbyn as a character as I get the impression that he does want to help everyone more so than the Tories do but he seems to have gone off the deep end with the left wing stuff and people can’t buy into it and after hearing that nationalisation goes hand in glove with strikes I can’t buy into it myself. Plus as I said earlier his credibility is somewhat shot hearing that he.’s got something like a 4 million fortune and his tax policy avoids an MPs income. I just hope this doesn’t force a shift totally the other way and they start encroaching on the Lib Dem’s territory after this election. It would be good to a see a competitive left leaning Labour with a credible leader...I’m not sure it.’s possible for such a thing to exist. Welcome to 1997. We had hope then. My understanding of 1997 is hazy, I was too young to vote and anti-Tory because of my family history so chuffed that Labour won, but Blair on the whole was not particarly left wing though was he? He had to move away considerably from what Labour had been in order to win an election right? Is it fair to see he is more like what the Liberal Democrat’s are today? |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Nov 27, 2019 14:12:35 GMT
That’s a good summation of how I see it right now. I don’t think I could bear another 5 years of the Tories but I fully appreciate now quite why Labour are so unelectable. I want to like Corbyn as a character as I get the impression that he does want to help everyone more so than the Tories do but he seems to have gone off the deep end with the left wing stuff and people can’t buy into it and after hearing that nationalisation goes hand in glove with strikes I can’t buy into it myself. Plus as I said earlier his credibility is somewhat shot hearing that he.’s got something like a 4 million fortune and his tax policy avoids an MPs income. I just hope this doesn’t force a shift totally the other way and they start encroaching on the Lib Dem’s territory after this election. It would be good to a see a competitive left leaning Labour with a credible leader...I’m not sure it.’s possible for such a thing to exist. Welcome to 1997. We had hope then. Aye but it was fun while it lasted!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 14:16:22 GMT
Welcome to 1997. We had hope then. Aye but it was fun while it lasted!! Dont you just yearn for a gruff, no nonsense chancellor with numerical ability, and an idealistic left of centre capitalist as leader?? If not for Iraq...what might have been |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Nov 27, 2019 14:17:52 GMT
Welcome to 1997. We had hope then. My understanding of 1997 is hazy, I was too young to vote and anti-Tory because of my family history so chuffed that Labour won, but Blair on the whole was not particarly left wing though was he? He had to move away considerably from what Labour had been in order to win an election right? Is it fair to see he is more like what the Liberal Democrat’s are today? I think you will find Blair was much closer to Thatcher than any previous Labour PM. However, he was one of the most charismatic speakers I have seen ,if you get a chance have a look at some of his labour conference speeches electrifying!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 14:20:39 GMT
Nobby is right, the nationalised industries were shocking. I moved to America in 1982 and when I moved in to our first house I applied for a phone line, so I rang Southern Bell. You can imagine my utter shock, having moved back to the UK in 1977 and had to wait 9 weeks for a phone line, when the operator said "Right, here is your number" I said, "Oh, right. When will that be available? Operator "when you go home home, plug your phone in, its live now" The point is, nationalisation should not be on the agenda. The Labour Party are utterly wrong over this. It's purely ideological, and things like this have cost them the election, along with having an utter twat, thick as two short planks, as a leader. Pity, because Health, Housing, Education and Social Care need sorting. But an equally ideological Tory Party have no policy to do so. That’s a good summation of how I see it right now. I don’t think I could bear another 5 years of the Tories but I fully appreciate now quite why Labour are so unelectable. I want to like Corbyn as a character as I get the impression that he does want to help everyone more so than the Tories do but he seems to have gone off the deep end with the left wing stuff and people can’t buy into it and after hearing that nationalisation goes hand in glove with strikes I can’t buy into it myself. Plus as I said earlier his credibility is somewhat shot hearing that he.’s got something like a 4 million fortune and his tax policy avoids an MPs income. I just hope this doesn’t force a shift totally the other way and they start encroaching on the Lib Dem’s territory after this election. It would be good to a see a competitive left leaning Labour with a credible leader...I’m not sure it.’s possible for such a thing to exist. There is a lazy narrative that every Tory hates poor people and wants to persecute them out of spite and for the pure fun of it. On the contrary I think all MP’s across all the parties would genuinely like to help everyone - why wouldn’t they as they’d stay in power forever! However, the likes of Corbyn live in a complete dream world thinking they can appease everyone and buy their votes when the reality is there is nowhere near enough money and a more balanced, sensible fiscal approach is needed. |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Nov 27, 2019 14:22:55 GMT
Aye but it was fun while it lasted!! Dont you just yearn for a gruff, no nonsense chancellor with numerical ability, and an idealistic left of centre capitalist as leader?? If not for Iraq...what might have been Aye,seems a life time ago so much hope so much pain. I used to travel up and down from Edinburgh to London on a weekly basis and sat next to many of Labour's heavyweights Robin Cook,Darling and GB who would always be very engaging and interested in what you did and what you thought,down to earth charming man |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 14:31:48 GMT
To 365 "Good point about how even people who are Labour supporters are not in favour of nationalisation. I just never understood why nationalisation was synonymous with union power but now the connection has been made explicit I see why that is the case and also why there is no workable compromise to make such a system work." As you say you are far younger than most of us, well me anyway, I hope you vote, and vote with your conscience and conviction. The thing is with economic policy capitalism is the worse system in the world, apart from all the rest (to paraphrase) Capitalism is the only way, and we must on occasion tolerate it even when it goes wrong (to excess). What a government, any government should do is deliver laws that help ameliorate excess and improve income distribution through a fair and consensual tax system This need not be monetary, but through services. Labour cannot do this as they are currently constituted and the Tories are ideologically opposed to doing this. Make your (informed) choice That’s my issue with Tory politics essentially- the controlling of excess. The economics primer I’m reading at the moment is pretty condemning of how The likes of Thatcher enabled excess by de-regulating the financial markets after some careful work had been done post World War II to develop a system that kept the financial system of each western country balanced whilst still providing growth. Now we have reached a period of rampant capitalism and it coincides with that damning UN report about the scale of inequality in the country after a decade of austerity. Eric made the point about dole scroungers abusing welfare and the like and whilst I wouldn’t disagree that there undoubtedly some feckless people about I think this land is in a bad place when *working people* have to use food banks and need social security support because a low wage just isn’t enough to house and feed them anymore. That absolutely *must* be addressed- do I trust the Tories to do so? Absolutely not, no matter what election pledge they make I’ll believe it when I see it. It’s just not good enough to have that particular problem in a country where the financial sector has assets equating to some 500 x it’s GDP. So I’m back to wanting a “no confidence” option on the voting slip, preferably with a box for comments to explain that I lean more towards Labour but they are making themselves unelectable. Thatcher did a good job in many respects and if she hadn’t would never have been re-elected. It all went a bit wrong at the end for her but coming in off the back of the 70’s where the streets were strewn with piled rubbish, all industries were striking, power cuts etc...she did well and should go down as one of our best PM’s. She wasn’t what many believe all Tories are - spoilt rich brats and I’m pretty sure her father ran a corner shop? She was a good patriot and always sought to put the UK’s well-being first. It was quite distasteful that when she died young people (mainly students) danced and celebrated singing the witch is dead when they were not even alive while she was PM. Makes me feel even more strongly that the voting age should be raised and not lowered! I didn’t like Blair or Brown but they were tolerable and not extremists like Corbyn - the thought of him as PM with McDonnell alongside is truly frightening but thankfully it won’t happen. Despite my dislike of Blair I didn’t fear for the future, both for myself and the country as a whole. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 14:37:43 GMT
Dont you just yearn for a gruff, no nonsense chancellor with numerical ability, and an idealistic left of centre capitalist as leader?? If not for Iraq...what might have been Aye,seems a life time ago so much hope so much pain. I used to travel up and down from Edinburgh to London on a weekly basis and sat next to many of Labour's heavyweights Robin Cook,Darling and GB who would always be very engaging and interested in what you did and what you thought,down to earth charming man I’m not sure that female pensioner from Rochdale would share your fondness for Brown - I think he ignored her, then his aides said he should engage and then got caught out on mic referring to her as “that bigoted woman” ! |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Nov 27, 2019 14:44:06 GMT
Aye,seems a life time ago so much hope so much pain. I used to travel up and down from Edinburgh to London on a weekly basis and sat next to many of Labour's heavyweights Robin Cook,Darling and GB who would always be very engaging and interested in what you did and what you thought,down to earth charming man I’m not sure that female pensioner from Rochdale would share your fondness for Brown - I think he ignored her, then his aides said he should engage and then got caught out on mic referring to her as “that bigoted woman” ! Certainly not his finest hour !! As that great philospher John Wayne (ahem ) said " in everyone's life a little rain must fall" |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 14:46:25 GMT
Aye,seems a life time ago so much hope so much pain. I used to travel up and down from Edinburgh to London on a weekly basis and sat next to many of Labour's heavyweights Robin Cook,Darling and GB who would always be very engaging and interested in what you did and what you thought,down to earth charming man I’m not sure that female pensioner from Rochdale would share your fondness for Brown - I think he ignored her, then his aides said he should engage and then got caught out on mic referring to her as “that bigoted woman” ! Ahh, sigh. A budget surplus in 2001 and paid down debt. 6% increase in health spending, per annum, with no increase in debt as measured as a % of gdp. Halcyon Days.... Did Thatcher manage that...answers on a post card to "Sorry, I havent a clue" |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Nov 27, 2019 14:52:48 GMT
I’m not sure that female pensioner from Rochdale would share your fondness for Brown - I think he ignored her, then his aides said he should engage and then got caught out on mic referring to her as “that bigoted woman” ! Ahh, sigh. A budget surplus in 2001 and paid down debt. 6% increase in health spending, per annum, with no increase in debt as measured as a % of gdp. Halcyon Days.... Did Thatcher manage that...answers on a post card to "Sorry, I havent a clue" Nope but I give Ken Clarke credit for setting the foundations. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 14:56:47 GMT
Ahh, sigh. A budget surplus in 2001 and paid down debt. 6% increase in health spending, per annum, with no increase in debt as measured as a % of gdp. Halcyon Days.... Did Thatcher manage that...answers on a post card to "Sorry, I havent a clue" Nope but I give Ken Clarke credit for setting the foundations. I like Ken Clarke, a social moderate who again had an ability to add up. Should have been Home Secretary under Blair. |
|
