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

[Sam-AVFC]

Just now, Mic09 said:

Different ways to look at it I guess.

If I vote for someone else, and it goes tits up because a majority of the country voted for red or blue (and I think both options go tits up) , I will be able to look in the mirror and say I did not take a part in this. 

I do understand that as well, I just think it's a little bit of a cop out because if the vote was won by one seat, which was won by one vote you absolutely did take part by abstaining!

I'll admit I am being a bit of a hypocrite as I'm lucky enough to live in a seat lopsided enough that it's all academic to me anyway.

[snowychap]

14 minutes ago, peterms said:

why would anyone want our national infrastructure to be in the hands of large companies

Different types of infrastructure (and at different stages) might benefit from different types of ownership and management and combinations of public and private.

The point is to try and assess what is the case rather than to make a case on ideological grounds and see it through simply for those purposes.

 

Edited November 15, 2019 by snowychap
spelling

[Sam-AVFC]

2 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

Where exactly does this nationalisation drive stop. I can agree that there's a case for intervention in certain natural monopolies but not all, Labour are really flirting with the idea of nationalising the lot. To absorb the lot would be an enormous cost, requiring intensive borrowing and taxation, and taxing the Amazon's of the world alongside the billionaires will not be enough, the burden will fall on most of us directly or indirectly. All this for services which will hardly be better than how they are currently run.  

That is the main danger. Any nationalisation plan would have to happen over a fairly long period and only be focused on essential national infrastructure. I just don't think Corbyn would have anywhere near the votes (even with a hugely unlikely majority) to implement a sweeping nationalisation program so people are worrying over nothing.

[peterms]

6 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Different types of infrastructure (and at different stages) might benefit from different types of ownership and management and combinations of public and private.

The point is to try and assess what is the case rather than to make a case on idealogical grounds and see it through simply for those purposes.

 

Thinking of health and education as examples, I can't see that introducing private ownership of infrastructure has been helpful.  Shoddy design and build arrangements, locked into costly loans and overpriced service contracts...if a publicly owned service thinks there are advantages in contracting with another provider, eg a health authority commissioning a particular service from a specialist agency or company, it should be able to do so, without handing over ownership and control to private companies.  Much of our infrastructure has been turned over to rent-seekers, and we are paying more for a worse service as a result - rail and water being examples.

As for broadband, there's an argument in this thread for a different model than the one Labour propose, but I'm not clear how it might work in practice, and whether it would be as good as he suggests.

 

[Xann]

6 minutes ago, Awol said:

You destroy the entire system upon which society, social peace and prosperity rests.

Lofty unchecked greed is eroding this now, for real.

33 minutes ago, Awol said:

The end result of that process is either anarchy or dictatorship - and they're not anarchists.    

This isn't written in stone.

It's down to us how it goes?

We have to take more interest in politics now, we've left the politicians to it and they've just enriched themselves.

Mankind is swarming now. Like it or not we're going to have to take onboard a more collective mindset.

Since a Green government is unrealistic, Labour it is.

47 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

I appreciate where you are coming from with this...

The UK.

The US would seem to suit your mindset better.

[AshVilla]

I think space travel should be nationalised and promise free trips to mars by 2040 vote for me...

[Dr_Pangloss]

21 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Different types of infrastructure (and at different stages) might benefit from different types of ownership and management and combinations of public and private.

The point is to try and assess what is the case rather than to make a case on ideological grounds and see it through simply for those purposes.

 

This is pretty much it, the 'plan' is ideological rather than being grounded in serious economic analysis with clear costs and benefits mapped out. It's also crude electioneering and amounts to trying to get people to vote for them in order to get all this 'free' and vital stuff. Not practical and it won't work. It would end up being a government of broken promises should they make it into power.

[Awol]

2 minutes ago, Xann said:

Lofty unchecked greed is eroding this now, for real.

True, but when you find a crack in the wall do you fix the wall or knock down the house?

This isn't written in stone.

Okay, but there isn't a single example, anywhere in recorded human history, of it going another way.

As indicators go I'd call that 'statistically significant.'

[chrisp65]

1 minute ago, AshVilla said:

I think space travel should be nationalised and promise free trips to mars by 2040 vote for me...

I think the state should fund private landlords to put 17,000 houesholds in flats clad like Grenfell. Vote for me....

[HanoiVillan]

21 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Different types of infrastructure (and at different stages) might benefit from different types of ownership and management and combinations of public and private.

The point is to try and assess what is the case rather than to make a case on ideological grounds and see it through simply for those purposes.

 

In the spirit of this point, it would be great if those opposed to nationalisation could instead outline why they want to keep Openreach as it is, or perhaps address an alternative system, rather than blahing on about Hitler and Stalin and the government running national infrastructure always ends in tears (this is not directed at any one particular poster, but at the thread at large). 

Or, if people don't want to go to the effort of mentioning any alternatives (which is fair enough - we don't have to be policy experts after all) then just stating whether or not they think Openreach is currently doing a good job would be useful. 

[Sam-AVFC]

5 minutes ago, Awol said:

True, but when you find a crack in the wall do you fix the wall or knock down the house?

As a surveyor, when I find a crack in a wall I'd suggest the owner addresses the underlying subsidence issue rather than just filling in the crack every time it got a bit worse and ignoring the cause.

Edited November 15, 2019 by Sam-AVFC

[Sam-AVFC]

4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

In the spirit of this point, it would be great if those opposed to nationalisation could instead outline why they want to keep Openreach as it is, or perhaps address an alternative system, rather than blahing on about Hitler and Stalin and the government running national infrastructure always ends in tears (this is not directed at any one particular poster, but at the thread at large). 

Or, if people don't want to go to the effort of mentioning any alternatives (which is fair enough - we don't have to be policy experts after all) then just stating whether or not they think Openreach is currently doing a good job would be useful. 

This is what frustrates me. I hear that Labour's (costed) plans to spend more are pie in the sky, but haven't heard anyone say where the extra money from a Boris government is meant to be coming from.

I'd take the argument a lot more seriously if someone pointed me towards, or carried out their own, analysis of why plans to tighten tax enforcement on multi nationals wouldn't fund the suggested plans and how Boris is funding his.

The extra £5b Labour have pledged to the NHS is completely outlandish, but the first £25b is no problem at all.

[NurembergVillan]

4 hours ago, bickster said:

The Labour Party turns your milk chocolatey

And your neighbours!

VOTE TORY TO SECURE OUR BORDERS!

[peterms]

2 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said:

And your neighbours!

VOTE TORY TO SECURE OUR BORDERS!

Very interested to see the tories bringing out racist immigration stuff in response to their declining lead in the polls and Johnson's bumbling and inept campaigning performance, and Labour promoting a pro-immigration video of the kind the Blairite party would never have countenanced.

[Xann]

2 minutes ago, Awol said:

True, but when you find a crack in the wall do you fix the wall or knock down the house?

The foundations are f***ed.

3 minutes ago, Awol said:

Okay, but there isn't a single example, anywhere in recorded human history, of it going another way.

As indicators go I'd call that 'statistically significant.'

Capitalism, Communism, Socialism could all work on paper.

It's people that are the problem.

People that stop at nothing particularly.

If only a fraction of the resources put into squeezing money out of the existing system was applied to fixing it.

 

 

 

[Awol]

2 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

In the spirit of this point, it would be great if those opposed to nationalisation could instead outline why they want to keep Openreach as it is, or perhaps address an alternative system, rather than blahing on about Hitler and Stalin and the government running national infrastructure always ends in tears (this is not directed at any one particular poster, but at the thread at large). 

Setting aside the boring blah-blah issues about whether the government should nick other people's stuff, I reckon we're both old enough to remember BT pre-nationalisation? No internet back then but a waiting list of about 6 weeks to get a phone-line installed, no competition on prices and dire service. Post-privatisation (i.e. now) you can chop and change as you please (contract allowing) chasing the best deal. If nationalisation doesn't deliver better service or pricing (this would end up being paid for through general taxation, not some fantasy about the giants of Silicon Valley ponying up) then what's the point?  

Also I'm not thrilled by the prospect of ANY government now or in the future effectively controlling the internet and access to it.  

There's a strong functional argument for nationalising some critical infrastructure, that is a separate discussion from that of government pursuing massive nationalisation as an end in itself.   

 

[snowychap]

24 minutes ago, peterms said:

Thinking of health and education as examples

Why can we not stick to discussing this one policy area of broadband for the moment?

I fear that what you are seeking to do is precisely what I'm seeking not to do, i.e. to make an across the board, ideological case for or against nationalisation or privatisation. All this really does is muddy the waters and fails to address issues that may be the case in one area and not another.

[HanoiVillan]

2 minutes ago, Sam-AVFC said:

This is what frustrates me. I hear that Labour's (costed) plans to spend more are pie in the sky, but haven't heard anyone say where the extra money from a Boris government is meant to be coming from.

I'd take the argument a lot more seriously if someone pointed me towards, or carried out their own, analysis of why plans to tighten tax enforcement on multi nationals wouldn't fund the suggested plans and how Boris is funding his.

The extra £5b Labour have pledged to the NHS is completely outlandish, but the first £25b is no problem at all.

Yes, this is a good point. What we know really is that whatever either party says right now, they would fund their spending pledges mainly through increased borrowing. Labour would gain more revenue through taxation, but it inevitably wouldn't be enough to fund everything. As for the Tories, as far as I can see they aren't planning to raise taxes at all, and might even reduce tax take, so borrowing will be the source of nearly all of their spending. 

This isn't really a problem, as government borrowing costs are still incredibly cheap by historical standards. But at least some of the projects chosen should be ones that will drive future economic growth. In those terms, nationwide broadband seems a more promising policy than a lot of proposed spending. 

[Xann]

4 minutes ago, Awol said:

Setting aside the boring blah-blah issues about whether the government should nick other people's stuff, I reckon we're both old enough to remember BT pre-nationalisation? No internet back then but a waiting list of about 6 weeks to get a phone-line installed, no competition on prices and dire service. Post-privatisation (i.e. now) you can chop and change as you please (contract allowing) chasing the best deal. If nationalisation doesn't deliver better service or pricing (this would end up being paid for through general taxation, not some fantasy about the giants of Silicon Valley ponying up) then what's the point? 

Comms improving is more about tech than politics.

Edited November 15, 2019 by Xann

[Awol]

5 minutes ago, Xann said:

It's people that are the problem.

A common conclusion reached by the far-right and far-left.

It never ends well.