The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

 most of us prefer to be left alone to do what we want but that conflicts with our desire to have others behave in a way we like or approve of.

The absolute crux of the problem for western democracy, we just want all the others to be like us, whilst we ourselves are suspicious of being asked to conform with all the others.

That’s pretty much where the snake oil of Brexit has come from, that then also causes all those small c one nation conservative unionists to fail to comprehend why Scotland wouldn’t want to be part of that fake solution.

 

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

The absolute crux of the problem for western democracy, we just want all the others to be like us, whilst we ourselves are suspicious of being asked to conform with all the others.

That’s pretty much where the snake oil of Brexit has come from, that then also causes all those small c one nation conservative unionists to fail to comprehend why Scotland wouldn’t want to be part of that fake solution.

 

The first para I completely agree. The second I don’t agree that this is the cause of Brexit at all. I think Brexit was caused by other factors completely and that it’s a big stretch indeed to say it’s why Scotland (if indeed Scotland doesn’t) doesn’t want to be part of a UK outside the EU

[chrisp65]

13 minutes ago, blandy said:

The first para I completely agree. The second I don’t agree that this is the cause of Brexit at all. I think Brexit was caused by other factors completely and that it’s a big stretch indeed to say it’s why Scotland (if indeed Scotland doesn’t) doesn’t want to be part of a UK outside the EU

So why do you think we voted to leave the EU, if it wasn’t that we didn’t want to conform with the EU and the EU wasn’t sufficiently thinking like us?

My point on Scotland wasn’t to give a definitive single reason why they might want to leave, it was to illustrate that those same unionist nationalists that wanted to break away from the EU, can’t comprehend why someone might possibly want to break away from them, i.e. the original point of wanting others to conform to our view of the world whilst being suspicious of their desire to get us to conform with theirs.

 

[blandy]

8 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

So why do you think we voted to leave the EU, if it wasn’t that we didn’t want to conform with the EU and the EU wasn’t sufficiently thinking like us?

My point on Scotland wasn’t to give a definitive single reason why they might want to leave, it was to illustrate that those same unionist nationalists that wanted to break away from the EU, can’t comprehend why someone might possibly want to break away from them, i.e. the original point of wanting others to conform to our view of the world whilst being suspicious of their desire to get us to conform with theirs.

More money for the NHS, control over immigration, they need us more than we need them, better trade deals, all the benefits and none of the costs, bendy bananas …take back control…(add whatever other lies you like to the list).

I agree that the throbbing Tory sect doesn’t necessarily understand the SNP’s motives.

But as this is the Labour thread I’ll add that their virtual disappearance from Scotland has been a major factor in both the prominence of the SNP and the dominance of the Tories in Westminster.

 

 

[chrisp65]

4 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

The absolute crux of the problem for western democracy, we just want all the others to be like us, whilst we ourselves are suspicious of being asked to conform with all the others.

That’s pretty much where the snake oil of Brexit has come from, that then also causes all those small c one nation conservative unionists to fail to comprehend why Scotland wouldn’t want to be part of that fake solution.

 

 

4 hours ago, blandy said:

More money for the NHS, control over immigration, they need us more than we need them, better trade deals, all the benefits and none of the costs, bendy bananas …take back control…(add whatever other lies you like to the list).

I agree that the throbbing Tory sect doesn’t necessarily understand the SNP’s motives.

But as this is the Labour thread I’ll add that their virtual disappearance from Scotland has been a major factor in both the prominence of the SNP and the dominance of the Tories in Westminster.

 

 

 

In my head (not the most organised of places, granted), we’ve both said the same thing.

[blandy]

6 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

In my head (not the most organised of places, granted), we’ve both said the same thing.

O K. If you mean what I wrote, I’ll take that. I didn’t mean what you wrote (as I read it).

Whichever, the challenge for Labour is to really work out and communicate how they will approach not just the EU, but other countries too. If/when they get in, they’ll almost certainly have more goodwill coming their way from that there abroadia (apart from the obvious exceptions), so they ought to be thinking about how they will respond and make things work better.

[mrchnry]

Starmers speech outlined some policies today under a Labour government, but its gone under the radar. People preferring to talk about Liz Truss' earrings. No wonder we're in such a mess. 

[Jon]

2 hours ago, mrchnry said:

Starmers speech outlined some policies today under a Labour government, but its gone under the radar. People preferring to talk about Liz Truss' earrings. No wonder we're in such a mess. 

No real policies as such, just a focus on 'economic growth '. The idea that growing the economy will benefit everyone. No socialism. No renationalisation.  An abandonment of the promises he made to get elected Labour leader.  

A charlatan, a liar. A market capitalist in the vein of Maggie but with a red tie on.  Arsehole.  

[Jareth]

Starmer's big reset speech today about er I think 'growth' - but the headlines are that Labour don't want to nationalise anything - until a few hours later when they cleared it all up by saying actually they aren't against nationalising rail. So it's all really clear as usual. 

[blandy]

There’s more logic to nationalising rail, a lot more. Only one set of tracks, get it all integrated and even tie it in with tube, light docklands rail, buses etc.

The other stuff, like water, say - if the issue is “bills are too high”, then it’s a lot simpler to regulate further along the lines of what they’ve done with gas and lecky. I think there’s already some statutory limits, but more could be done. Nationalising stuff takes up a huge amount of time and civil service effort and also discourages foreign investment, at a time when Brexit is already impacting stuff like that we don’t want “don’t invest in anything British, because it’ll get nationalised”.

Sort the absolutely desperately needed stuff out before flourishing ideological nice to haves. NHS, inflation, war, Northern Ireland, relations with the EU, schools, local services, green investment, that stuff. Who “owns” the water is neither here nor there, right now.

[bickster]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

There’s more logic to nationalising rail, a lot more. Only one set of tracks, get it all integrated and even tie it in with tube, light docklands rail, buses etc.

The other stuff, like water, say - if the issue is “bills are too high”, then it’s a lot simpler to regulate further along the lines of what they’ve done with gas and lecky. I think there’s already some statutory limits, but more could be done. Nationalising stuff takes up a huge amount of time and civil service effort and also discourages foreign investment, at a time when Brexit is already impacting stuff like that we don’t want “don’t invest in anything British, because it’ll get nationalised”.

Sort the absolutely desperately needed stuff out before flourishing ideological nice to haves. NHS, inflation, war, Northern Ireland, relations with the EU, schools, local services, green investment, that stuff. Who “owns” the water is neither here nor there, right now.

There's only one set of drains too It's a monopoly, I don't get a choice of who removes my soiled water (which is what you actually pay for)

I think the energy side of things is a bit different like you say but water is in the same category as rail for me

[chrisp65]

 

 

[chrisp65]

 

 

[blandy]

43 minutes ago, bickster said:

There's only one set of drains too It's a monopoly, I don't get a choice of who removes my soiled water (which is what you actually pay for)

I think the energy side of things is a bit different like you say but water is in the same category as rail for me

Solving problems. If I buy a train ticket, I often can only use one company’s trains for the journey, even though another company goes to the same place. So if say my train is running late then when I get to (say) Crewe, and have missed my connection, I can’t just get on the next train, I have to wait for the next Avanti train, in an hour…etc.

With water, yes it’s kind of like the rail network, but the problems are not like with the rail network.

I mean I was totally against privatisation of water, gas, etc. but the complexity of privatising (parts of) Shell Energy, or north West water are much greater than just letting remaining rail franchises run out, they’ve practically been taken back public already in most respects.

Not worth the parliamentary burden right now, IMO, for water, say.

[fruitvilla]

Here's my take ...  I don't care who does the mail, rail, water etc so long it is done effectively and efficiently from a tax, economy and environment point of view. 

I don't think either publicly or privately owned utilities have a monopoly of doing things efficiently or poorly. For the publicly owned model we need a really effective government that will put the public "good" ahead of its political needs. Similarly the private model will require effective regulation of the service providers.

Tricky on the whole as the situation and technologies change. Taking a look at the world history and the political structures therein I get a sense of different pendula doing their thing.

[chrisp65]

 

 

[blandy]

Quote

Public ownership would:  Reduce bills  Speed up energy efficiency improvements to homes  Cut carbon emissions faster

It could. Equally it could not. I mean as a slogan it’s fine, but it’s bollex. The thing that will do that is government action, regardless of who runs or owns utilities.

Im not trying in any way to promote privatisation, but that kind of over simplistic guff is doing no one any favours.

Reducing bills when the energy price is determined by international markets and events (war, for example) means government subsidies paid for either by taxes, or by govt borrowing, as does mitigating price rises (see France). Energy efficiency is based on insulation and more efficient sources of generation - again, yeah government action required, but sod all to do with ownership. Same with emissions- use tax system, tax the polluter, use the revenue to subsidise insulation/ renewables etc. Do not grant a single new fossil fuel extraction license.

Allow the setting up and encourage the setting up of localised energy generation mini cooperatives, whether solar or wind or whatever to power local communities and let them reap the benefits.

The current system is ****, for sure. The solutions aren’t reverting to civil servants running shit they don’t understand any more than letting spivs and red trousered whoppers pillage the planet at the expense of everyone else ( see I can do stupid simplifications too).

[chrisp65]

I was just wondering whether there had been any level of discussion with his MP’s and supporters. Genuinely so, there might very well have been.

Or what he thought of the Labour government in Wales taking over the running of Transport for Wales. 

Or whether he would nationalise the steel plant in Port Talbot for national security, or let it close, or give the overseas owners another £1.5 Billion to keep it running a while longer.

[blandy]

He’s said today what I wrote here yesterday. Do you think he reads VT off topic?

[chrisp65]

Inspirational.