Jump to content

The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)


blandy

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Mozzavfc said:

It's about time the franchise system does. I wonder which one of Corbyn's they are going to incorporate next

Bring back British Rail, was a thing, way before Corbyn was a thing. And it was a great roots almost middle class thing too.

Giving Corbyn credit for wanting to renationalise the railways is silly, he was years behind if the truth be known. It wasn't even a Labour thing, he actually jumped on a growing bandwagon of satisfied commuters who were already organised

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, bickster said:

Bring back British Rail, was a thing, way before Corbyn was a thing. And it was a great roots almost middle class thing too.

Giving Corbyn credit for wanting to renationalise the railways is silly, he was years behind if the truth be known. It wasn't even a Labour thing, he actually jumped on a growing bandwagon of satisfied commuters who were already organised

Well, to put it this way, I think it's highly unlikely that renationalising the railways will appear in Labour's *next* manifesto, however many grassroots middle-class groups support the idea. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Well, to put it this way, I think it's highly unlikely that renationalising the railways will appear in Labour's *next* manifesto, however many grassroots middle-class groups support the idea. 

Funny times though,  it might not be the same enterprise at all after the COVID.

If it stays half empty then government ownership is the only way to keep it going.

People are never going back to 5 days a week in the office and if the pricing is as I was told last week then it needs a 100% re-think.  A maximum price per mile travelled or something like that.  30p a mile or something.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

 

A couple of points here. Even if that were true, in what way can they possibly think they're abiding by the spirit and intent?

Additionally, the **** policing minister is coming out with this nonsense? At this point they're wiping their arse with the social contract. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thread:

I think it's about time we recognised just how seriously dangerous this government and those behind it are.

They may be the end result of a descent from the Major government (sleaze and corruption) via Blair (corruption, spin, lying, government by sofa and SI, huge increase in number of criminal offences, terrorism laws, &c.) and Cameron (more dodginess, spin, lying, government by sofa and SI, hostile environment, &c.) and May (spin, incompetence, hostile environment, attacks on judiciary, 'enemies of the people'/'citizens of nowhere', government by sofa and SI, disdain for Parliament) but they make all of the previous lot look distinctly decent.

Now we have government by decree and press conference (via SI, obviously), a ramping up of pretty much every fault of the previous few governments (from corruption to disdain for Parliament to attacks on the legal profession & the judiciary to attacks on the rule of law to up is down and left is right gaslighting) and they are just beginning.

I envisage us being told future legal changes via articles behind a Torygraph paywall so that we can merely see the three word 'title' of the new legislation and a brief jingoistic, exhortative summary or have the changes hinted at by a wink from behind a podium. I'm only slightly joking.

I'm not sure whether we have the Rubicon in front of us or in our rear view mirror - I fear the latter.

 

All lists above re: former governments are non-exhaustive.

Edit: And for all of the interjections from these former PMs over the past however long, they have to understand how they helped to make this current government possible and, even, likely.

Edited by snowychap
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

A couple of points here. Even if that were true, in what way can they possibly think they're abiding by the spirit and intent?

Additionally, the **** policing minister is coming out with this nonsense? At this point they're wiping their arse with the social contract. 

As above and per my comment in the virus thread, I can't see it as anything other than intentional now.

They'll have been briefed on this and they're not sending out trusted people like Malthouse to riff on it. It's a phrase that one could imagine being in Cummings's blog (indeed it may well be somewhere).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

Funny times though,  it might not be the same enterprise at all after the COVID.

If it stays half empty then government ownership is the only way to keep it going.

People are never going back to 5 days a week in the office and if the pricing is as I was told last week then it needs a 100% re-think.  A maximum price per mile travelled or something like that.  30p a mile or something.

 

My prediction is that your final points here - price caps, greater regulation - will exactly be Labour's approach, not just to the railways but to other utilities as well. Public ownership will be a threat that won't be used, except in case of the imminent collapse of providers.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Well, to put it this way, I think it's highly unlikely that renationalising the railways will appear in Labour's *next* manifesto, however many grassroots middle-class groups support the idea. 

Why do you say that, Hanoi?  - it was one of Starmer's pledges for his leadership - "Public services should be in public hands, not making profits for shareholders. Support common ownership of rail....", it is popular nationally with voters, it's popular with Labour members and the NEC. Why on earth wouldn't Labour conference or a Labour manifesto include that?

IS it because you don't believe it will be done via nationalisation - instead via simply letting franchise contracts end? Which is probably a better way to do it for all sorts of reasons.

  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, blandy said:

Why do you say that, Hanoi?  - it was one of Starmer's pledges for his leadership - "Public services should be in public hands, not making profits for shareholders. Support common ownership of rail....", it is popular nationally with voters, it's popular with Labour members and the NEC. Why on earth wouldn't Labour conference or a Labour manifesto include that?

IS it because you don't believe it will be done via nationalisation - instead via simply letting franchise contracts end? Which is probably a better way to do it for all sorts of reasons.

  

If Starmer wants the Labour party to be seen as more 'moderate', the way he is likely to do that is to focus on a very small number of emblematic left-wing pledges in the manifesto, and to downplay other issues, or fight for them to be removed from the manifesto altogether. Bridget Phillipson made clear yesterday that Labour are going to attempt to appear 'fiscally responsible', which in practice will mean they need to ditch - and be seen to ditch - several big-ticket items from the manifesto. Likely that will include rail nationalisation, and instead a managerialist focus on regulating price and service quality - letting contracts expire will be seen as a last resort, and a stick with which to keep privatised providers in line. Most of the PLP consider public ownership to be axiomatically Bad, so they won't want to do it as a preference. My view of Starmer's leadership pledges is that they will be largely broken, and you can tell just how much store he puts in them by how often he, or those close to him, refer to them (never).

Of course, the next election is a long way away, and the Tories might have changed how the system looks quite substantially. I suspect there will be very little difference between how the two parties act in practice on the issue.

Edited by HanoiVillan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, bickster said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but the East Coast Mainline actually made money when it was in state control

I believe that's right. But Britain's media and political class will code nationalisation as an unnecessary expense anyway.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Genie said:

Are they any way close to losing the vote?

There's a useful explainer on the process and possible outcomes here: https://ukandeu.ac.uk/will-the-lords-block-the-uk-internal-market-bill/

. . . but we don't have to wait too long to find out, as the debate starts at 4:30. The bill will likely pass Second Reading; the things to look out for are how many people abstain, and does the Neill amendment pass (I think).

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â