Do you want to discuss boring politics? (63 Viewers)

Forums New posts
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge said:
When the government took on shares in the banks after the GFC, weren't they technically doing something similar

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
That was my first thought.

And frankly why shouldn't govts be allowed to act like a business and do a hostile takeover? Aren't we always hearing how public bodies need to be more like private ones? Frankly if you've come begging to the public purse for money then they get to dictate the terms. Perhaps if govts played hardball maybe companies would think twice about doing reckless things cos they know someone else isn't just going to pick up the tab.
 
C

CCFCSteve

Well-Known Member
SBAndy said:


I feel dirty.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately this looks like the best solution currently with the possibility of renationalising after administration. Alternatively customers will end up footing the bill through managements incompetence. I’ve got no issue with private ownership of utilities if it drives competition, efficiencies etc and is an open playing field but it just doesn’t work with water/monopolies. Same with the half in half out trains. If there were different companies operating the same line and therefore competition, fair enough but that’s not the case

All utility companies should have strict rules/guidelines to follow with regard to delivery of service (ie water and sewage) and if they are breached and not remedied in a certain time period the option should be there to renationalise at no cost to public. The regulators all appear toothless as well which doesn’t help
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Really don’t see why there isn’t a consensus of nationalising natural monopolies. It’s why I couldn’t agree with Corbyn on the post office, because I don’t believe it’s a monopoly on package delivery and it’s a tiny minority of messaging transmission. But I did agree with nationalising Open Reach because everyone needs a comms backbone and you’re only really going to build one (virgin media are a bit of a thorn in this one - but don’t have national coverage which proves the point).

We don’t need to nationalise Greggs, we just need to be able to control the levers of the cost of living. Build a fuck ton of houses, have councils build a good chunk of them for social rent, bring energy, water, communications and travel into public ownership as there’s no real competition and/or every person relies on them to be at a certain standard. Then unleash the private sector in things were good at, with a bit of support forming strategic industries. Bring down everyone’s cost of living, boost the economy to raise wages, tax fairly for a limited set of public services at high quality (emergency services, health, justice, education) which are subsidised by the profitable parts of the nationalised network.

This seems like the median position on the desired economic position of everyone I meet. Yet no party of offering it. Corbyn came close but then went mental in other areas and abroad, the Tories are obsessed with a being US lite. And most people want essentially the economy of the 50s and 60s updated for today don’t they?
 
Sky Blue Pete

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
Really don’t see why there isn’t a consensus of nationalising natural monopolies. It’s why I couldn’t agree with Corbyn on the post office, because I don’t believe it’s a monopoly on package delivery and it’s a tiny minority of messaging transmission. But I did agree with nationalising Open Reach because everyone needs a comms backbone and you’re only really going to build one (virgin media are a bit of a thorn in this one - but don’t have national coverage which proves the point).

We don’t need to nationalise Greggs, we just need to be able to control the levers of the cost of living. Build a fuck ton of houses, have councils build a good chunk of them for social rent, bring energy, water, communications and travel into public ownership as there’s no real competition and/or every person relies on them to be at a certain standard. Then unleash the private sector in things were good at, with a bit of support forming strategic industries. Bring down everyone’s cost of living, boost the economy to raise wages, tax fairly for a limited set of public services at high quality (emergency services, health, justice, education) which are subsidised by the profitable parts of the nationalised network.

This seems like the median position on the desired economic position of everyone I meet. Yet no party of offering it. Corbyn came close but then went mental in other areas and abroad, the Tories are obsessed with a being US lite. And most people want essentially the economy of the 50s and 60s updated for today don’t they?
Click to expand...
It’s because institutions are inherently poor at delivering services
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
The fundamental idea behind privatisation, when you really get down to it, is that there’s two types of people, public sector workers who are lazy and unproductive, and magical private sector workers who are hungry and efficient and driven.

And as someone who had done both extensively, I’m here to tell you that’s bollocks. There’s certainly more drive for profit, but at the expense of user experience every time. Capitalism is great at throwing energy at problems, but it’s wasteful and huge amounts of it are sub par. If you care about delivery standards, you have to write War and Peace in contracts that inevitably get loopholes because that’s where the incentive is, because the private sector is not about standards, it’s an optimisation machine with a single goal of more profit. And like any optimisation algorithm it’s only as good as the reward function you set. And capitalism only has one reward function.
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
skybluetony176 said:
Remember when we held all the cards

www.bbc.co.uk

New post-Brexit tariff to apply to UK cars going to Canada

A post-Brexit deal has expired with no new agreement, which leaving UK exports to Canada subject to new tariffs.
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
To be fair it looks like the UK doesn't want to allow Canadian imports of hormone injected beef. I'm sure you were making the argument previously that the UK accepting inferior meat products from North America was one of the inevitable consequences of no deal Brexit.


Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge said:
To be fair it looks like the UK doesn't want to allow Canadian imports of hormone injected beef. I'm sure you were making the argument previously that the UK accepting inferior meat products from North America was one of the inevitable consequences of no deal Brexit.


Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

And as Tony is a vegetarian he clearly now sees this as a benefit
 
skybluetony176

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge said:
To be fair it looks like the UK doesn't want to allow Canadian imports of hormone injected beef. I'm sure you were making the argument previously that the UK accepting inferior meat products from North America was one of the inevitable consequences of no deal Brexit.


Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
A few points. If we were still in the EU we would currently be enjoying a comprehensive free trade deal with Canada that doesn’t involve the the import of hormone injected beef. A perfect example of how we don’t hold all the cards on our own. We can’t even force the hand of Canada on our own.
Secondly, because of the complexity of the UK it actually seems for the benefit of keeping the union together we can’t expect hormone injected beef. The EU are pulling the shots and there’s nowt we can do about it. Another perfect example of how we don’t and never did hold all the cards.
Thirdly, I know you think you’re being clever but that post really ain’t the win you think it was.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
skybluetony176 said:
A few points. If we were still in the EU we would currently be enjoying a comprehensive free trade deal that doesn’t involve the the import of hormone injected beef. A perfect example of how we don’t hold all the cards on our own. We can’t even force the hand of Canada on our own.
Secondly, because of the complexity of the UK it actually seems for the benefit of keeping the union together we can’t expect hormone injected beef. The EU are pulling the shots and there’s nowt we can do about it. Another perfect example of how we don’t and never did hold all the cards.
Thirdly, I know you think you’re being clever but that post really ain’t the win you think it was.
Click to expand...

Are we going to win today Tony?
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
skybluetony176 said:
A few points. If we were still in the EU we would currently be enjoying a comprehensive free trade deal that doesn’t involve the the import of hormone injected beef. A perfect example of how we don’t hold all the cards on our own. We can’t even force the hand of Canada on our own.
Secondly, because of the complexity of the UK it actually seems for the benefit of keeping the union together we can’t expect hormone injected beef. The EU are pulling the shots and there’s nowt we can do about it. Another perfect example of how we don’t and never did hold all the cards.
Thirdly, I know you think you’re being clever but that post really ain’t the win you think it was.
Click to expand...

We hold the cards insofar as we can make our own trade deals, I'm not sure what's so difficult to understand.

Fyi, the comprehensive agreement still hasn't been ratified by all of the parliaments of the member states including Ireland. It is nearly 7 years since it was signed off by European parliament.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
 
skybluetony176

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge said:
We hold the cards insofar as we can make our own trade deals, I'm not sure what's so difficult to understand.

Fyi, the comprehensive agreement still hasn't been ratified by all of the parliaments of the member states including Ireland. It is nearly 7 years since it was signed off by European parliament.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Pfft. With a hand worth fuck all. The Australia trade deal is standing joke in Australia of how they pulled our pants down. And now Canada is calling the shots. Your “win” is a kick in the balls. You’re like a divorced man bragging how he can now play the field even though he couldn’t pull in a brothel. Or in terms of the Australian trade deal you got to the brothel only to find out that you’re the one having to give out the tricks. Your win is worthless, it’s self defeating, it’s a victory in name only.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge said:
Most things have been made with vegetable oils for years and years and years including these scones. This constant tedious culture war nonsense is utterly depressing.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

They also supply butter to put on the scones and the vast majority of produce is non vegan
 
duffer

duffer

Well-Known Member
CCFCSteve said:
Just leave this here incase anyone’s looking for a good book. Only two weeks to go…

Click to expand...


Conservatives have values now? 😁

Liz Truss is the best example I can bring to hand, of someone who is too thick to actually realise they're thick.

Fair play though, it must take ages to write a book when you have to move your lips whilst you're doing it.

At least in the old days the Tories had the occasional evil genius, this lot are denser than a lead marble in the centre of a black hole.
 
duffer

duffer

Well-Known Member
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
jimmyhillsfanclub said:
www.bbc.co.uk

More than 3,000 hate crime complaints made to Police Scotland

The new law creates a crime of "stirring up hatred" over several protected characteristics.
www.bbc.co.uk

I'm sure the wider Scottish public feel well served by this latest legislation....... I doubt the Scottish police have got anything more pressing to be dealing with....

Crime won't crack itself Ken...
Click to expand...

It’s embarrassing and the SNP will soon be back to the political obscurity it deserves.
 
C

CCFCSteve

Well-Known Member
jimmyhillsfanclub said:
www.bbc.co.uk

More than 3,000 hate crime complaints made to Police Scotland

The new law creates a crime of "stirring up hatred" over several protected characteristics.
www.bbc.co.uk

I'm sure the wider Scottish public feel well served by this latest legislation....... I doubt the Scottish police have got anything more pressing to be dealing with....

Crime won't crack itself Ken...
Click to expand...

It’s mental. It feels like parts of society continually want to move us towards considering words more harmful than actions. I’m all for doing everything to stop hate speech that incites violence against others but we already have laws to cover this, so the new law just appears to broaden the definition and circumstances.

‘The bar for this offence is lower than for the other protected characteristics, as it also includes "insulting" behaviour, and as the prosecution need only prove that stirring up hatred was "likely" rather than "intended".

I mean WTF ! Not only does this all feel very subjective (very dangerous when it comes to law), you get your house burgled - sorry police too busy….someone said something I don’t like and I think it could stir up hatred - police should investigate 🤷‍♂️. Whatever shitshow we have down here it’s nothing compared to the clowns up there. Bet the police are loving it
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
CCFCSteve said:
It’s mental. It feels like parts of society continually want to move us towards considering words more harmful than actions. I’m all for doing everything to stop hate speech that incites violence against others but we already have laws to cover this, so the new law just appears to broaden the definition and circumstances.

‘The bar for this offence is lower than for the other protected characteristics, as it also includes "insulting" behaviour, and as the prosecution need only prove that stirring up hatred was "likely" rather than "intended".

I mean WTF ! Not only does this all feel very subjective (very dangerous when it comes to law), you get your house burgled - sorry police too busy….someone said something I don’t like and I think it could stir up hatred - police should investigate 🤷‍♂️. Whatever shitshow we have down here it’s nothing compared to the clowns up there. Bet the police are loving it
Click to expand...

I don’t get the phrase stirring up hatred. Doesn’t that require some level of thought leadership. If I tweet all Scots are arseholes am I not part of the hatred, maybe even stirred up by someone else, when do I become the stirrer?
 
W

wingy

Well-Known Member
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 1 more.
    • Total: 62 (members: 2, guests: 60)
    Top