Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Conservatives must again make the case for private enterpr

24567

Comments

  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745
    Morning all :)

    Thank you, as always, for the piece, David.

    Without belabouring the point, the Conservatives have been in power and running the economy since 2010 - your piece almost sounds as though they won the election this week.

    May is, as I have often said, an interventionist. There is nothing that cannot be achieved in her eyes, it seems to me, without State intervention or legislation to facilitate it. Some might argue she is almost as much a social democrat as Blair or before him, Wilson. Yes, she is socially conservative and that's the difference.

    While the centre-left has never been able to articulate an alternative economic model since their version collapsed in 2008, all the centre-right had was austerity and that too has run its course. We therefore have the centre-right going back to traditional Keynesian approaches of capital infrastructural spending hoping no one will notice.

    As we also see, other factors have dramatically changed the personal economic landscape for millions of people. The 2010s will, for many, be a "lost" decade in terms of economic prosperity and levels of personal debt remain worryingly high despite historically low levels of interest and weak inflation. People have become cheap and that's the problem.

    Unfortunately, if David is any guide, the Conservative response is try to re-fight the battles of the 1980s and to seek to re-invent Thatcherism for the 2010s. The centre-right are as bereft of ideas as the centre-left.

    People are cheap - everything starts from that. It was possible to build successful economies from that premise in the past but the problem is the people don't want to be cheap and they have a vote (one each I believe). A Party which promises to stop people feeling cheap and unvalued will get votes even if the economic foundations of that party's programme are deficient in credibility.

    Sometimes, an uncertain but potentially attractive future will look better than an unchanging present. Capitalism has to work for all and not in some vague trickle-down nonsense way. If it doesn't, the attraction of alternatives increases.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    edited May 2018
    Mr. Sandpit, cheers. Not sure what I'm looking for, to be honest. Had a quick look, nothing leapt out at me. Hoping the old hardware acceleration fix will work, but, if not, I'll give you a bell.

    Edited extra bit: and, on the extensions, I've only got a couple and they're both currently disabled anyway.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Charles said:



    Often this magical thinking is compounded by the issue of public versus private ownership, and Mrs Thatcher used to rail against the dead hand of the state, yet as we discussed earlier in the week, many privatisations have eventually led to state ownership by foreign countries.

    This canard of "foreign state ownership" often gets rolled out as an argument against privatisation.

    The issue is not with the ownership per se, but with the incentives and dynamics that it creates.

    A successful business is one that provides a great service to clients, at a cost they are prepared to pay, while operating in full compliance with regulations and with due consideration to their other stakeholders.

    That can be delivered independent of ownership.

    The problem is that when a domestic government owns a business these forces get out of whack. As we see in any case where there is a concentrated group (in this case the employees/unions) vs a diffuse group (the customers) the concentrated group benefits disproportionately because of their more focused political weight. Moreover, given other pressures on government resources there is a tendancey to under invest because of the demand for dividends to fund other government spending
    No, because the pressures you cite still exist, but now twice over. The British government has to choose between investment (and paying subsidies to foreign governments) and Germany (say) has to choose between fixing its own rolling stock or ours or spending the money on new street lights.

    We need to distinguish markets from ownership because otherwise we tie ourselves in knots.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    JackW said:

    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    BBC - Harry becomes Duke of Sussex.

    At least it wasn't Duke of Clarence.

    Edit - I wonder if he will ever be made Duke of York or if this is where his run of titles will end and Louis will take York next. I suppose it may depend on whether Charles outlives the Queen or not.
    The York title is unlikely to be used again in the foreseeable future as both of the Duke of York's daughters derive their dignity from their father and as young women could possibly outlive Prince Harry. Possibly Prince Louise as the second son of a future King William will be next Duke of York.
    Which is what I was saying (and btw I think it's 'Prince Louis').

    Fascinating fact - no Duke of York has directly inherited the title from a parent since 1402, and even if we extend it to uncles the last person to claim it by inheritance was Richard of York (1411-1460) in 1415.
    Oopps ... Titter .... :smile:

    The Queen's father was of course Duke of York before becoming George VI albeit there was the interval of his brother inheriting from their father in January 1936 before abdicating in December.

    Yes - but the King wasn't Duke of York, although he had been prior to becoming King. The title was created for George VI (Prince Albert as he then was).
    Quite so. The Dukedom of York being a new creation each time as when previous Dukes became King their titles merged into the crown. The present Duke being the eight creation (or more accurately ninth including Henry Benedict - Jacobite Duke of York - second son of King James VIII/III.) :sunglasses:
    He wasn't Duke of York, although he claimed the title. You have to be confirmed in the title by the Sovereign before inheriting.

    This is why, as a really geeky point, Wikipedia is wrong to say Edward IV was Duke of York prior to becoming King. As his father had been killed in battle against the lawful King, all titles had been forfeited and Henry VI (or precisely, Marguerite d'Anjou) refused to allow titles to pass to his sons. So Edward proclaimed himself King instead and confirmed that title by winning Towton.

    Bizarrely, the only time he ever even claimed to be Duke of York was in 1471, when he returned to England to end the Readeption. He said he was only there to take back his title, and enough people were fooled to allow him to get to London and arrest Henry VI - at which point he dropped the pretence and declared himself King again!
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879

    The public/private debate is pretty sterile. Structures should be a tool to results, not a goal in themselves.

    The poor quality, lack of investment and high prices in key utilities and services is the problem. Neither nationalisation nor privatisation is going to solve that by itself. More money and better regulation is required, and rather more important. Neither side is talking much about what the targets should be and how in detail they are to be achieved.

    Great minds!!!

  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    edited May 2018
    IMO as a floating voter, the way that Brexit is being handled has wiped out the Tory party's reputation for competence and planning. Regardless of what I think of Brexit itself, the handling of it is an utter shambles and the highly public divisions and splits do not instil much confidence either.

    They are not acting like a party. Unfortunately I cannot think of the correct collective noun to describe them. Perhaps a "Rabble of navel-gazers"?

    I cannot believe that they could advocate a coherent economic policy if they tried.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited May 2018

    The public/private debate is pretty sterile. Structures should be a tool to results, not a goal in themselves.

    The poor quality, lack of investment and high prices in key utilities and services is the problem. Neither nationalisation nor privatisation is going to solve that by itself. More money and better regulation is required, and rather more important. Neither side is talking much about what the targets should be and how in detail they are to be achieved.

    Agree completely that we should be talking about outputs, targets and service levels, rather than inputs, structures and ownership. Different structures will work best in different places, the important thing is that we use the best type of business in each case.

    Edit: Southam makes a similar point above.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,883



    They are not acting like a party. Unfortunately I cannot think of the correct collective noun to describe them. Perhaps a "Rabble of navel-gazers"?

    Tories share their term of venery with ravens.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    edited May 2018
    Dura_Ace said:



    They are not acting like a party. Unfortunately I cannot think of the correct collective noun to describe them. Perhaps a "Rabble of navel-gazers"?

    Tories share their term of venery with ravens.
    A "Murder of Tories"?

    Provocative stuff Mr Ace
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,883

    Dura_Ace said:



    They are not acting like a party. Unfortunately I cannot think of the correct collective noun to describe them. Perhaps a "Rabble of navel-gazers"?

    Tories share their term of venery with ravens.
    A "Murder of Tories"?

    Provocative stuff Mr Ace
    That's crows. A group of ravens is an "unkindness".
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,883
    The other two I know are "a book of stamps" and "a dose of crabs".
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    Dura_Ace said:

    Dura_Ace said:



    They are not acting like a party. Unfortunately I cannot think of the correct collective noun to describe them. Perhaps a "Rabble of navel-gazers"?

    Tories share their term of venery with ravens.
    A "Murder of Tories"?

    Provocative stuff Mr Ace
    That's crows. A group of ravens is an "unkindness".
    Oops!

    A day in which you learn something new is never wasted :D
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,547


    Ownership is irrelevant, service and delivery are what count. Being stuck on private or public is so 20th century. Our curse is that politics has been captured by backward-looking nostalgists on the left and right just as the world is undergoing fundamental change. Macron currently seems to be the only leader capable of coherent, strategic, forward-looking thought.

    Priavtisation, nationalisation, PFI etc are all tools in a toolbox. The key to good services is deciding which tools is best used in what situation, or a combination thereof.

    Instead, they become ideological drums.

    As an example, it's quite clear that the vast majority of people screeching about the renationalisation of the railways have not given one moments' thought to the problems facing the railways, or how they might be fixed. It's got to be in public hands because BR was great and the private sector is evil.

    This is why they're unable to answer even simple questions about the issue.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    edited May 2018
    That as good a writer as Mr Herdson needs so many words to explain and argue his point on this issue rather shows why it will be impossible for the public to be swayed; it's too complicated.

    If people think of anything Water companies when they think private ownership they will be very negative there needs to be more success storiesm. Incontestable ones. If you are getting a crap service it hardly matters where it cones from.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,547
    I must admit, I cannot wait to see Charles take Meghan up the aisle.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    I wholeheartedly agree with the header, thanks David.

    I can’t help but think we need a loud and proud Chancellor. Michael Gove, step forward..
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    edited May 2018
    Mr Jessop,

    I wish the happy couple well, but I must admit I smiled at the joke on my Facebook page.

    'What a pity that neither father will be present at the ceremony.'

    Am I bad?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340


    Ownership is irrelevant, service and delivery are what count. Being stuck on private or public is so 20th century. Our curse is that politics has been captured by backward-looking nostalgists on the left and right just as the world is undergoing fundamental change. Macron currently seems to be the only leader capable of coherent, strategic, forward-looking thought.

    Priavtisation, nationalisation, PFI etc are all tools in a toolbox. The key to good services is deciding which tools is best used in what situation, or a combination thereof.

    Instead, they become ideological drums.

    As an example, it's quite clear that the vast majority of people screeching about the renationalisation of the railways have not given one moments' thought to the problems facing the railways, or how they might be fixed. It's got to be in public hands because BR was great and the private sector is evil.

    This is why they're unable to answer even simple questions about the issue.
    A Prime Minister who was a great communicator referred to “what works”. This was seen by some on both sides as a sign he was an intellectual lightweight. It seems to me that he had thought about it more deeply than his critics.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    I must admit, I cannot wait to see Charles take Meghan up the aisle.

    Due to merely glancing at the headlines this morning, I had a bit of a turn when I read "Wedding fever as Harry mounts Meghan" rather than "Wedding fever mounts as Harry weds Meghan"

    :D
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Barnesian said:

    Charles said:



    Often this magical thinking is compounded by the issue of public versus private ownership, and Mrs Thatcher used to rail against the dead hand of the state, yet as we discussed earlier in the week, many privatisations have eventually led to state ownership by foreign countries.

    This canard of "foreign state ownership" often gets rolled out as an argument against privatisation.

    The issue is not with the ownership per se, but with the incentives and dynamics that it creates.

    A successful business is one that provides a great service to clients, at a cost they are prepared to pay, while operating in full compliance with regulations and with due consideration to their other stakeholders.

    That can be delivered independent of ownership.

    The problem is that when a domestic government owns a business these forces get out of whack. As we see in any case where there is a concentrated group (in this case the employees/unions) vs a diffuse group (the customers) the concentrated group benefits disproportionately because of their more focused political weight. Moreover, given other pressures on government resources there is a tendancey to under invest because of the demand for dividends to fund other government spending
    In private ownership, where there is a concentrated group (in this case the senior management) vs a diffuse group (the customers and employees) the concentrated group benefits disproportionately because of their more focused power. Moreover, given other pressures on company resources there is a tendency to under invest because of the demand for dividends to boost bonus payments.
    The principal agent problem is an issue, yes, and institutional shareholders are slowly getting more active but they could - and should - do more.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,044
    Hans-Werner Sinn, economist at Munich University:

    “There is no possible solution to [Euro mess]. The catastrophe is happening. This is going to lead to the destruction of Europe, to say it bluntly. It will also bring AfD (Right-wing populists) to power in Germany,”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/05/17/italys-insurgents-enrage-germany-risk-ecb-payment-freeze/
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    edited May 2018

    Hans-Werner Sinn, economist at Munich University:

    “There is no possible solution to [Euro mess]. The catastrophe is happening. This is going to lead to the destruction of Europe, to say it bluntly. It will also bring AfD (Right-wing populists) to power in Germany,”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/05/17/italys-insurgents-enrage-germany-risk-ecb-payment-freeze/

    It looked possible a catatrophe would happen several years ago and the system coped just fine in the end.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:



    Often this magical thinking is compounded by the issue of public versus private ownership, and Mrs Thatcher used to rail against the dead hand of the state, yet as we discussed earlier in the week, many privatisations have eventually led to state ownership by foreign countries.

    This canard of "foreign state ownership" often gets rolled out as an argument against privatisation.

    The issue is not with the ownership per se, but with the incentives and dynamics that it creates.

    A successful business is one that provides a great service to clients, at a cost they are prepared to pay, while operating in full compliance with regulations and with due consideration to their other stakeholders.

    That can be delivered independent of ownership.

    The problem is that when a domestic government owns a business these forces get out of whack. As we see in any case where there is a concentrated group (in this case the employees/unions) vs a diffuse group (the customers) the concentrated group benefits disproportionately because of their more focused political weight. Moreover, given other pressures on government resources there is a tendancey to under invest because of the demand for dividends to fund other government spending
    No, because the pressures you cite still exist, but now twice over. The British government has to choose between investment (and paying subsidies to foreign governments) and Germany (say) has to choose between fixing its own rolling stock or ours or spending the money on new street lights.

    We need to distinguish markets from ownership because otherwise we tie ourselves in knots.
    I disagree.

    The German state company will operate as value maximisers - like any private company - in order to generate a surplus that they can spend in Germany
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    BBC - Harry becomes Duke of Sussex.

    At least it wasn't Duke of Clarence.

    Edit - I wonder if he will ever be made Duke of York or if this is where his run of titles will end and Louis will take York next. I suppose it may depend on whether Charles outlives the Queen or not.
    The York title is unlikely to be used again in the foreseeable future as both of the Duke of York's daughters derive their dignity from their father and as young women could possibly outlive Prince Harry. Possibly Prince Louise as the second son of a future King William will be next Duke of York.
    Which is what I was saying (and btw I think it's 'Prince Louis').

    Fascinating fact - no Duke of York has directly inherited the title from a parent since 1402, and even if we extend it to uncles the last person to claim it by inheritance was Richard of York (1411-1460) in 1415.
    Oopps ... Titter .... :smile:

    The Queen's father was of course Duke of York before becoming George VI albeit there was the interval of his brother inheriting from their father in January 1936 before abdicating in December.

    Yes - but the King wasn't Duke of York, although he had been prior to becoming King. The title was created for George VI (Prince Albert as he then was).
    Quite so. The Dukedom of York being a new creation each time as when previous Dukes became King their titles merged into the crown. The present Duke being the eight creation (or more accurately ninth including Henry Benedict - Jacobite Duke of York - second son of King James VIII/III.) :sunglasses:
    He wasn't Duke of York, although he claimed the title. You have to be confirmed in the title by the Sovereign before inheriting.
    Incorrect.

    Henry was born in Rome on 6th March 1725 and presented by his father, King James VIII/III, to Pope Benedict XIII that same day with the words :

    "I present to your Holiness the Duke of York, that you may make him a Christian."

    The King issued letters patent that same month.

  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    The public/private debate is pretty sterile. Structures should be a tool to results, not a goal in themselves.

    The poor quality, lack of investment and high prices in key utilities and services is the problem. Neither nationalisation nor privatisation is going to solve that by itself. More money and better regulation is required, and rather more important. Neither side is talking much about what the targets should be and how in detail they are to be achieved.

    Great minds!!!

    And fools? :)
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697

    I must admit, I cannot wait to see Charles take Meghan up the aisle.

    Let's hope she's not looking round to see if her love rival is in the congregation unlike Charles' first wife when she went up the aisle. :D
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    edited May 2018

    I must admit, I cannot wait to see Charles take Meghan up the aisle.

    Never too early for Martini and smut!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,589
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    BBC - Harry becomes Duke of Sussex.

    At least it wasn't Duke of Clarence.

    Edit - I wonder if he will ever be made Duke of York or if this is where his run of titles will end and Louis will take York next. I suppose it may depend on whether Charles outlives the Queen or not.
    Or Gloucester.
    There's already a Duke of Gloucester!
    So there is ! (I confess my interest in such matters ends sometime around the Restoration.)
    I had no idea - which perhaps demonstrates how pointless these titles now are.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Hans-Werner Sinn, economist at Munich University:

    “There is no possible solution to [Euro mess]. The catastrophe is happening. This is going to lead to the destruction of Europe, to say it bluntly. It will also bring AfD (Right-wing populists) to power in Germany,”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/05/17/italys-insurgents-enrage-germany-risk-ecb-payment-freeze/

    The only solution is massive fiscal transfers from Germany et al to Italy et al. Otherwise the Euro is unsustainable given the fiscal controls it imposes on the Southern states.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265
    I agree with Alastair and Southam that looking at outcomes is in the long run more important than ownership. Indeed, Scandinavian social democracy works pretty well (even when administered by compliant nominally conservative governments) and is largely based on private ownership with strong regulatory requirements. If the Government is determining what sort of rail infrastructure we are willing to pay for, who actually delivers it is a second-order issue.

    However, there is a limit to how much you can sensibly do by regulation - a lot of business involves just getting on with the job meeting day to day challenges, and trying to regulate in advance all the challenges that might arise, or require a reference to Ministers before deciding, would be a nightmare before which even Stalin might have quailed. It's therefore an important question what motivation the management has when it confronts a new challenge - let's say "Should we improve the line from Newark to Nottingham?"

    In a private quasi-monopoly on a short-term franchise, the answer to that is "Only if it will deliver a decent profit in the next few years". In a state-owned monopoly, the answer is ultimately, "Yes, if voters will think the benefits outweigh the cost and disruption."

    For example, arguably I lost my seat very narrowly in 2010 because a few hundred voters really disliked my support for the expansion of the tram network into my constituency, at the cost of huge disruption to trade and individuals - I thought it a good idea in the long term, said so, and paid an electoral price. I didn't like the outcome, but it's how democracy works, and surely better than someone in an office totting up whether it'll deliver a 3% ROI in the next 5 years.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    I agree with Alastair and Southam that looking at outcomes is in the long run more important than ownership. Indeed, Scandinavian social democracy works pretty well (even when administered by compliant nominally conservative governments) and is largely based on private ownership with strong regulatory requirements. If the Government is determining what sort of rail infrastructure we are willing to pay for, who actually delivers it is a second-order issue.

    However, there is a limit to how much you can sensibly do by regulation - a lot of business involves just getting on with the job meeting day to day challenges, and trying to regulate in advance all the challenges that might arise, or require a reference to Ministers before deciding, would be a nightmare before which even Stalin might have quailed. It's therefore an important question what motivation the management has when it confronts a new challenge - let's say "Should we improve the line from Newark to Nottingham?"

    In a private quasi-monopoly on a short-term franchise, the answer to that is "Only if it will deliver a decent profit in the next few years". In a state-owned monopoly, the answer is ultimately, "Yes, if voters will think the benefits outweigh the cost and disruption."

    For example, arguably I lost my seat very narrowly in 2010 because a few hundred voters really disliked my support for the expansion of the tram network into my constituency, at the cost of huge disruption to trade and individuals - I thought it a good idea in the long term, said so, and paid an electoral price. I didn't like the outcome, but it's how democracy works, and surely better than someone in an office totting up whether it'll deliver a 3% ROI in the next 5 years.

    Inadvertently you demonstrate how the two are similar. Politicians’ franchises run for five years. Yours was not renewed. Other potential franchise bidders will have taken note accordingly.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038

    The reason is that both parties have venerated markets without understanding them -- what they are, how they work, and what can go wrong. Markets are seen as magical. Utilities are classically seen as needing more regulation because they tend naturally to monopolies, but our politicians tend to think all regulation is harmful. DH's OP lists more than three-quarters of the public backed state ownership of water, electricity, gas and railways. That’s no doubt partially a consequence of some obvious problems in each of those markets. and it is noticeable that is more-or-less a list of formerly state-run utilities.

    Often this magical thinking is compounded by the issue of public versus private ownership, and Mrs Thatcher used to rail against the dead hand of the state, yet as we discussed earlier in the week, many privatisations have eventually led to state ownership by foreign countries.

    Well-runit.

    I agree water is marginal. I think most people would agree telecommunications privatisation has been a huge success - think of all the choice of phones, providers and packages we now have - and we would say the same about aviation, and would find nationalising road haulage downright weird.

    I happen to think electricity, gas and the railways work far better as privately run industries, and are much more innovative markets now, and we do get a much better deal. The issue with all of those is a perception of high prices and poor service, particularly British Gas/Centrica, and Southern Railways, which offends our sense of fair play and triggers nostalgia that some Unions are skillful at exploiting.

    In reality, gas and electricity would be likely be more expensive under a nationalised system, slower to fix faults and have poorer service. The railways would start to suffer from under-investment, run older rolling stock, less frequently, be more susceptible to strikes, and be far less innovative at pushing new service innovations.

    Ownership is irrelevant, service and delivery are what count. Being stuck on private or public is so 20th century. Our curse is that politics has been captured by backward-looking nostalgists on the left and right just as the world is undergoing fundamental change. Macron currently seems to be the only leader capable of coherent, strategic, forward-looking thought.

    I agree that results are what matters. But, no-one has managed to convince me that nationalised industry structures are better.

    In the railway industry, where I quite a bit of work, the quasi-nationalised Network Rail is hugely clunky and dysfunctional. It is bad at delivering projects, although just about copes at operational repairs. Hence things like the Shaw and Hendy reviews.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038
    I see from this thread that for the swivel-eyed Remainer loon pub-bores absolutely everything is about Brexit; they won’t change their minds, and they can’t stand someone trying to change the subject.

    I am laughing to myself as I ignore them, enjoy the weather and the royal wedding.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,547

    I agree that results are what matters. But, no-one has managed to convince me that nationalised industry structures are better.

    In the railway industry, where I quite a bit of work, the quasi-nationalised Network Rail is hugely clunky and dysfunctional. It is bad at delivering projects, although just about copes at operational repairs. Hence things like the Shaw and Hendy reviews.

    And where the state has got involved with the privatised areas - such as in specifying new trains the TOCs don't want - we get things like the disastrous IEP project.

    It's also noticeable how the people advocating renationalisation don't address the issue that the nationalised Network Rail has repeatedly failed, not just at the big-bang enhancements such as the GWML electrification, but also at their bread-and-butter renewals and maintenance. And these failures cause many of the delays they blame the private sector for.

    Renationalisation of the railways may be the answer. But they've arrived at their preferred answer without asking any questions.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    IMO as a floating voter, the way that Brexit is being handled has wiped out the Tory party's reputation for competence and planning. Regardless of what I think of Brexit itself, the handling of it is an utter shambles and the highly public divisions and splits do not instil much confidence either.

    They are not acting like a party. Unfortunately I cannot think of the correct collective noun to describe them. Perhaps a "Rabble of navel-gazers"?

    I cannot believe that they could advocate a coherent economic policy if they tried.

    That is so true. It's hard to believe it was only 2015 when they were elected with what looked like a pretty reasonable programme and certainly one that you thought they were going to deliver.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,547

    I see from this thread that for the swivel-eyed Remainer loon pub-bores absolutely everything is about Brexit; they won’t change their minds, and they can’t stand someone trying to change the subject.

    (Snip)

    That's a bit uncalled for.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    edited May 2018

    IMO as a floating voter, the way that Brexit is being handled has wiped out the Tory party's reputation for competence and planning. Regardless of what I think of Brexit itself, the handling of it is an utter shambles and the highly public divisions and splits do not instil much confidence either.

    They are not acting like a party. Unfortunately I cannot think of the correct collective noun to describe them. Perhaps a "Rabble of navel-gazers"?

    I cannot believe that they could advocate a coherent economic policy if they tried.

    I am afraid it just illustrates what a poor political class we have now compared to the past. There are some limited exceptions but we just have too many career politicians with little vision or capacity to deliver fundamental or radical change.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Excellent article - agree - and some interesting thoughts from the Ecoomist:

    Just as warnings that Brexit would make people poorer failed to deter those who longed to claw back power from Brussels, those same arguments against Mr Corbyn’s programme may not persuade voters determined to “take back control” of the economy.

    https://www.economist.com/britain/2018/05/17/corbynomics-would-change-britain-but-not-in-the-way-most-people-think
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038
    Sean_F said:

    I blame the Conservatives less than I blame executives who think they can behave like trade unions in the 1960's and 1970's; or those whose business model is based on the short-term rip-off; or insolvency practitioners who loot the companies they're meant to be salvaging. Too many people get away with unethical behaviour, and that undermines faith in the system.

    This is a good point. Thatcher got political traction with her property owning democracy and popular capitalism in the 1980s because, at the time, she was seen to be on your side. She was standing up for the little guy against the establishment, which was then dominated by massive nationalised monopolies and almighty unions.

    Today, some of the more oligopolistic forms of capitalism have now become the 21stC version of that establishment.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038

    I see from this thread that for the swivel-eyed Remainer loon pub-bores absolutely everything is about Brexit; they won’t change their minds, and they can’t stand someone trying to change the subject.

    (Snip)

    That's a bit uncalled for.
    It’s absolutely called for. The posters and their posts are obvious on this thread.

    They don’t like it up ‘em.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,883



    I agree that results are what matters. But, no-one has managed to convince me that nationalised industry structures are better.

    Just dealing with cognitive complexity of the privatised utilities' tariff structures is like trying to decode the Voynich Manuscript. It's hard to tell if you're getting a good deal or getting fucked.

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038

    I agree that results are what matters. But, no-one has managed to convince me that nationalised industry structures are better.

    In the railway industry, where I quite a bit of work, the quasi-nationalised Network Rail is hugely clunky and dysfunctional. It is bad at delivering projects, although just about copes at operational repairs. Hence things like the Shaw and Hendy reviews.

    And where the state has got involved with the privatised areas - such as in specifying new trains the TOCs don't want - we get things like the disastrous IEP project.

    It's also noticeable how the people advocating renationalisation don't address the issue that the nationalised Network Rail has repeatedly failed, not just at the big-bang enhancements such as the GWML electrification, but also at their bread-and-butter renewals and maintenance. And these failures cause many of the delays they blame the private sector for.

    Renationalisation of the railways may be the answer. But they've arrived at their preferred answer without asking any questions.
    On Crossrail, it’s the privately owned MTR[C] TOC that has the 30 year concession and is pushing ahead to help complete the project in a way that consistently impresses me, whilst the much more sluggish Rail for London (TfL offshoot) drags its feet.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,405
    On topic, people are fed up with the little guy being constantly shafted by the fat-cats. Be that bankers being baled out, over-priced gas and leccy tariffs for the poorest or those not savvy enough to switch, rail companies offering deteriorating services while their bosses travel in private jets or business owners running away and leaving huge holes in the pension scheme while they have awarded themselves huge bonuses.

    Something needs to change. And Nationalisation offers that something. Of course if it is done badly things won't get better. But properly managed, run for the public good, we can have public services that are high quality, efficient and a joy to use.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038
    Dura_Ace said:



    I agree that results are what matters. But, no-one has managed to convince me that nationalised industry structures are better.

    Just dealing with cognitive complexity of the privatised utilities' tariff structures is like trying to decode the Voynich Manuscript. It's hard to tell if you're getting a good deal or getting fucked.

    It really isn’t. The comparison sites or Martin Lewis’s money saving expert site is very good.

    My short answer would be: never touch British Gas with a barge pole, and check out Ovo or Bulb.

    Switching takes 10 minutes.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Current railway set up clearly does not work. Time to try something else.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,044
    Sandpit said:

    Hans-Werner Sinn, economist at Munich University:

    “There is no possible solution to [Euro mess]. The catastrophe is happening. This is going to lead to the destruction of Europe, to say it bluntly. It will also bring AfD (Right-wing populists) to power in Germany,”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/05/17/italys-insurgents-enrage-germany-risk-ecb-payment-freeze/

    The only solution is massive fiscal transfers from Germany et al to Italy et al. Otherwise the Euro is unsustainable given the fiscal controls it imposes on the Southern states.
    Doubt that will happen (fiscal transfers). €250bn of Italian bonds already held by the ECB, which new Italian parties want to simply cancel iirc. Germans up in arms etc etc...
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038
    Small brag: I bet on Chelsea Davy being invited to Harry and Meghan’s wedding with Paddy Power, and I have just seen her seated in St.George’s chapel Windsor.

    I had to explain to my wife why I was so pleased about that. Get in.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    That's a very interesting article (I think David should ask the Spectator if they'd like him to contribute for money as a really good Conservative commentator, with some of his columns here as an example) and it deserves a detailed response from a socialist viewpoint. I'll try to be brief.

    1. To defend free enterprise, it's important to choose defensible examples. The classic division was that de facto monopolies should be public, competitive industries should be private.

    2. Conversely, even the most Corbynite of us don't really think that we need state control of vigorous consumer markets - a British Rice Krispies, say. There's a reason why nobody serious is campagning for renewed state ownership of telecomms, because the telecomms market is highly competitive and, let's admit it, works well.

    3. Gasman and DavidL have pointed out the risks of state ownership, but Gasman also inadvertently puts the case for it too when he says that the Government might take actions with the industry to win votes.

    4. Union power in monopoly industries is an issue (actually for the same reason), but applies equally in the private sector (cf Southern Rail). Long-term agreements and workers on the board in exchange for a no-strike deal is a possible solution which has worked in other countries.

    The current Labour party has no interest in wealth creation. It just assumes it will happen. That is a profound mistake.

    I don't think that's true. They seem very interested in wealth creation. Here are a few things from their last manifesto.

    - Create a National Transformation Fund that will invest £250bn over 10 years in upgrading the economy.

    - Deliver universal superfast broadband availability by 2022

    - A National Investment Bank as part of a plan to provide £250bn of lending power over the next decade for infrastructure

    - Reinstate the lower small-business corporation tax rate

    - Scrap quarterly reporting for businesses with a turnover of under £85,000.

    I've got my doubts about whether such an inexperienced team as Labour is currently fielding at the top of the party have got the ability, and particularly the contacts, to deliver much of that plan. But it sounds a lot more positive than their opponents in England and Wales are offering.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,044
    On energy utilities, Corbyn is very interested in the non-profit, council run Robin Hood scheme up in Notts. Being rolled out to other council areas now iirc.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,405
    Off topic, but the unavoidable topic of today: Very thoughtful of so many of the women attending the wedding to wear satellite dishes on their heads. Their husbands and partners will be able to watch the cup final build-up during the duller bits of the service.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,547

    I see from this thread that for the swivel-eyed Remainer loon pub-bores absolutely everything is about Brexit; they won’t change their minds, and they can’t stand someone trying to change the subject.

    (Snip)

    That's a bit uncalled for.
    It’s absolutely called for. The posters and their posts are obvious on this thread.

    They don’t like it up ‘em.
    Well, I disagree.

    And there's a bigger issue here. Leaving my own opinion to one side: why shouldn't they think that everything is about Brexit? We're currently in a Schrodinger's Cat Brexit: nothing has been decided, and if it goes badly (*) then everything will be mucked up. A bad Brexit will leave nothing unharmed (and the opposite may be true as well).

    The uncertainty is the killer. This is one reason I thought a quick, hard Brexit was required. I hope I was wrong about that, but it's sadly looking more likely by the day.

    As for changing their minds: if the country voted in a Labour government under Corbyn, you wouldn't change your mind and suddenly become a Corbynite, would you? You'd accept the result, hold his government to account for their mistakes, and prepare for the next election (which you will be wanting ASAP).

    And the Brexiteers before the referendum were not open to changing their minds, and droned on about it until they got the referendum they wanted.

    It seems they're the ones who don't like their own behaviour up 'em ..

    (*) Which I hope it will not.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    brendan16 said:

    IMO as a floating voter, the way that Brexit is being handled has wiped out the Tory party's reputation for competence and planning. Regardless of what I think of Brexit itself, the handling of it is an utter shambles and the highly public divisions and splits do not instil much confidence either.

    They are not acting like a party. Unfortunately I cannot think of the correct collective noun to describe them. Perhaps a "Rabble of navel-gazers"?

    I cannot believe that they could advocate a coherent economic policy if they tried.

    I am afraid it just illustrates what a poor political class we have now compared to the past. There are some limited exceptions but we just have too many career politicians with little vision or capacity to deliver fundamental or radical change.

    I agree. Labour does not look like an alternative and there are no other likely options. We have to pick one of the two :(
  • DeClareDeClare Posts: 483
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    BBC - Harry becomes Duke of Sussex.

    At least it wasn't Duke of Clarence.

    Edit - I wonder if he will ever be made Duke of York or if this is where his run of titles will end and Louis will take York next. I suppose it may depend on whether Charles outlives the Queen or not.
    Or Gloucester.
    There's already a Duke of Gloucester!
    So there is ! (I confess my interest in such matters ends sometime around the Restoration.)
    I had no idea - which perhaps demonstrates how pointless these titles now are.
    That's funny?

    My BBC feed says Harry becomes Earl of Dumbarton and that Megan will be known as The Countess of Dumbarton.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    brendan16 said:

    IMO as a floating voter, the way that Brexit is being handled has wiped out the Tory party's reputation for competence and planning. Regardless of what I think of Brexit itself, the handling of it is an utter shambles and the highly public divisions and splits do not instil much confidence either.

    They are not acting like a party. Unfortunately I cannot think of the correct collective noun to describe them. Perhaps a "Rabble of navel-gazers"?

    I cannot believe that they could advocate a coherent economic policy if they tried.

    I am afraid it just illustrates what a poor political class we have now compared to the past. There are some limited exceptions but we just have too many career politicians with little vision or capacity to deliver fundamental or radical change.

    I agree. Labour does not look like an alternative and there are no other likely options. We have to pick one of the two :(
    You don’t have to choose between Ebola and anthrax. It’s acceptable to abstain.
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 2,191



    I don't think that's true. They seem very interested in wealth creation. Here are a few things from their last manifesto.

    - Create a National Transformation Fund that will invest £250bn over 10 years in upgrading the economy.

    - Deliver universal superfast broadband availability by 2022

    - A National Investment Bank as part of a plan to provide £250bn of lending power over the next decade for infrastructure

    - Reinstate the lower small-business corporation tax rate

    - Scrap quarterly reporting for businesses with a turnover of under £85,000.

    I've got my doubts about whether such an inexperienced team as Labour is currently fielding at the top of the party have got the ability, and particularly the contacts, to deliver much of that plan. But it sounds a lot more positive than their opponents in England and Wales are offering.

    National Transformation Fund?

    Spare us.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Royale, congrats on the royal bet. Not touched any of the markets myself.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,405

    Small brag: I bet on Chelsea Davy being invited to Harry and Meghan’s wedding with Paddy Power, and I have just seen her seated in St.George’s chapel Windsor.

    I had to explain to my wife why I was so pleased about that. Get in.

    Well done. Is Meghan's ex there too?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    DeClare said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    BBC - Harry becomes Duke of Sussex.

    At least it wasn't Duke of Clarence.

    Edit - I wonder if he will ever be made Duke of York or if this is where his run of titles will end and Louis will take York next. I suppose it may depend on whether Charles outlives the Queen or not.
    Or Gloucester.
    There's already a Duke of Gloucester!
    So there is ! (I confess my interest in such matters ends sometime around the Restoration.)
    I had no idea - which perhaps demonstrates how pointless these titles now are.
    That's funny?

    My BBC feed says Harry becomes Earl of Dumbarton and that Megan will be known as The Countess of Dumbarton.
    In Scotland. Just as the Prince of Wales is known as the Duke of Rothesay.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,405
    Victoria Beckham looks like she is attending a funeral.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    brendan16 said:

    IMO as a floating voter, the way that Brexit is being handled has wiped out the Tory party's reputation for competence and planning. Regardless of what I think of Brexit itself, the handling of it is an utter shambles and the highly public divisions and splits do not instil much confidence either.

    They are not acting like a party. Unfortunately I cannot think of the correct collective noun to describe them. Perhaps a "Rabble of navel-gazers"?

    I cannot believe that they could advocate a coherent economic policy if they tried.

    I am afraid it just illustrates what a poor political class we have now compared to the past. There are some limited exceptions but we just have too many career politicians with little vision or capacity to deliver fundamental or radical change.

    I agree. Labour does not look like an alternative and there are no other likely options. We have to pick one of the two :(
    You don’t have to choose between Ebola and anthrax. It’s acceptable to abstain.
    No it isn’t. If would be acceptable if decisions didn’t have to be made, but since someone will have to govern it is imperative to make a choice.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038

    I see from this thread that for the swivel-eyed Remainer loon pub-bores absolutely everything is about Brexit; they won’t change their minds, and they can’t stand someone trying to change the subject.

    (Snip)

    That's a bit uncalled for.
    It’s absolutely called for. The posters and their posts are obvious on this thread.

    They don’t like it up ‘em.
    Well, I disagree.

    And there's a bigger issue here. Leaving my own opinion to one side: why shouldn't they think that everything is about Brexit? We're currently in a Schrodinger's Cat Brexit: nothing has been decided, and if it goes badly (*) then everything will be mucked up. A bad Brexit will leave nothing unharmed (and the opposite may be true as well).

    The uncertainty is the killer. This is one reason I thought a quick, hard Brexit was required. I hope I was wrong about that, but it's sadly looking more likely by the day.

    As for changing their minds: if the country voted in a Labour government under Corbyn, you wouldn't change your mind and suddenly become a Corbynite, would you? You'd accept the result, hold his government to account for their mistakes, and prepare for the next election (which you will be wanting ASAP).

    And the Brexiteers before the referendum were not open to changing their minds, and droned on about it until they got the referendum they wanted.

    It seems they're the ones who don't like their own behaviour up 'em ..

    (*) Which I hope it will not.
    Don’t encourage the obsessives. We are not discussing Brexit on this thread. We are discussing economic principles.

    The rest of your post is ad hominem and whataboutism. I’m not going to waste my time responding to it.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Jonathan said:

    brendan16 said:

    IMO as a floating voter, the way that Brexit is being handled has wiped out the Tory party's reputation for competence and planning. Regardless of what I think of Brexit itself, the handling of it is an utter shambles and the highly public divisions and splits do not instil much confidence either.

    They are not acting like a party. Unfortunately I cannot think of the correct collective noun to describe them. Perhaps a "Rabble of navel-gazers"?

    I cannot believe that they could advocate a coherent economic policy if they tried.

    I am afraid it just illustrates what a poor political class we have now compared to the past. There are some limited exceptions but we just have too many career politicians with little vision or capacity to deliver fundamental or radical change.

    I agree. Labour does not look like an alternative and there are no other likely options. We have to pick one of the two :(
    You don’t have to choose between Ebola and anthrax. It’s acceptable to abstain.
    No it isn’t. If would be acceptable if decisions didn’t have to be made, but since someone will have to govern it is imperative to make a choice.
    It isn’t imperative not to give either of the two main parties the legitimacy of my vote. They are both in different ways appalling and to be vigorously opposed.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382

    That's a very interesting article (I think David should ask the Spectator if they'd like him to contribute for money as a really good Conservative commentator, with some of his columns here as an example) and it deserves a detailed response from a socialist viewpoint. I'll try to be brief.

    1. To defend free enterprise, it's important to choose defensible examples. The classic division was that de facto monopolies should be public, competitive industries should be private.

    2. Conversely, even the most Corbynite of us don't really think that we need state control of vigorous consumer markets - a British Rice Krispies, say. There's a reason why nobody serious is campagning for renewed state ownership of telecomms, because the telecomms market is highly competitive and, let's admit it, works well.

    3. Gasman and DavidL have pointed out the risks of state ownership, but Gasman also inadvertently puts the case for it too when he says that the Government might take actions with the industry to win votes.

    4. Union power in monopoly industries is an issue (actually for the same reason), but applies equally in the private sector (cf Southern Rail). Long-term agreements and workers on the board in exchange for a no-strike deal is a possible solution which has worked in other countries.

    The current Labour party has no interest in wealth creation. It just assumes it will happen. That is a profound mistake.

    I don't think that's true. They seem very interested in wealth creation. Here are a few things from their last manifesto.

    - Create a National Transformation Fund that will invest £250bn over 10 years in upgrading the economy.

    - Deliver universal superfast broadband availability by 2022

    - A National Investment Bank as part of a plan to provide £250bn of lending power over the next decade for infrastructure

    - Reinstate the lower small-business corporation tax rate

    - Scrap quarterly reporting for businesses with a turnover of under £85,000.

    I've got my doubts about whether such an inexperienced team as Labour is currently fielding at the top of the party have got the ability, and particularly the contacts, to deliver much of that plan. But it sounds a lot more positive than their opponents in England and Wales are offering.
    To be fair , I do not think SO will have read the Labour manifesto at the last GE.

    He had already made his mind up.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038

    Small brag: I bet on Chelsea Davy being invited to Harry and Meghan’s wedding with Paddy Power, and I have just seen her seated in St.George’s chapel Windsor.

    I had to explain to my wife why I was so pleased about that. Get in.

    Well done. Is Meghan's ex there too?
    Cheers. Don’t think so. Right now my wife and I are chuckling a little bit at Amal and George Clooney, because she looks rather pleased at her yellow dress and hat.

    I’ll feel better when PaddyPower pay out though. I have no idea why they offered Chelsea Davy at 33/1 and am now slightly worried there may be some small print t&cs I’ve missed.
  • DeClareDeClare Posts: 483

    I see from this thread that for the swivel-eyed Remainer loon pub-bores absolutely everything is about Brexit; they won’t change their minds, and they can’t stand someone trying to change the subject.

    (Snip)

    That's a bit uncalled for.
    It’s absolutely called for. The posters and their posts are obvious on this thread.

    They don’t like it up ‘em.
    Absolutely right. The remaindermen can only blame themselves for losing the referendum by running a negative campaign.
    Why don't they just wait until we leave and then if they think that the EU is still such a good idea, mount a campaign to re-join.
    Good luck with that though, I predict that first the Euro and then the EU as a whole will have ended in failure within 10 years.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Victoria Beckham looks like she is attending a funeral.

    I thought she looked understated and elegant. The object being not to overshadow the bride. Mrs JackW agreed so that's a wrap !! .... :smile:
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,044



    I don't think that's true. They seem very interested in wealth creation. Here are a few things from their last manifesto.

    - Create a National Transformation Fund that will invest £250bn over 10 years in upgrading the economy.

    - Deliver universal superfast broadband availability by 2022

    - A National Investment Bank as part of a plan to provide £250bn of lending power over the next decade for infrastructure

    - Reinstate the lower small-business corporation tax rate

    - Scrap quarterly reporting for businesses with a turnover of under £85,000.

    I've got my doubts about whether such an inexperienced team as Labour is currently fielding at the top of the party have got the ability, and particularly the contacts, to deliver much of that plan. But it sounds a lot more positive than their opponents in England and Wales are offering.

    National Transformation Fund?

    Spare us.
    "Deliver universal superfast broadband availability by 2022"

    Does this imply nationalising OpenReach?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    brendan16 said:

    IMO as a floating voter, the way that Brexit is being handled has wiped out the Tory party's reputation for competence and planning. Regardless of what I think of Brexit itself, the handling of it is an utter shambles and the highly public divisions and splits do not instil much confidence either.

    They are not acting like a party. Unfortunately I cannot think of the correct collective noun to describe them. Perhaps a "Rabble of navel-gazers"?

    I cannot believe that they could advocate a coherent economic policy if they tried.

    I am afraid it just illustrates what a poor political class we have now compared to the past. There are some limited exceptions but we just have too many career politicians with little vision or capacity to deliver fundamental or radical change.

    I agree. Labour does not look like an alternative and there are no other likely options. We have to pick one of the two :(
    You don’t have to choose between Ebola and anthrax. It’s acceptable to abstain.
    No it isn’t. If would be acceptable if decisions didn’t have to be made, but since someone will have to govern it is imperative to make a choice.
    It isn’t imperative not to give either of the two main parties the legitimacy of my vote. They are both in different ways appalling and to be vigorously opposed.
    Nope. Having no govt is not an option, so you’re endorsing one by default.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Royale, sometimes there are delays, although you're right that sometimes (not often, thankfully) payouts just don't happen. Still not happy Betfair Sportsbook didn't pay out properly when I backed Hamilton for a podium and he got one (alleged reason being he started in the pit lane, but that was known when I made the bet).
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    JackW said:

    Excellent nod to the Jacobite cause from the Queen. Harry's Scottish title of Earl of Dumbarton has been revived.The father and son of the first creation served King James II and VII in exile.

    Hi Jack. I don't want to put you on the spot but a question that's been puzzling me about the future Dumbartons as they head towards their nuptials.

    If the father of the bride has just had a heart attack, rather than fretting over who'll give her away shouldn't they be making a bee-line to the hospital where the poor man is gravely ill?

    Or are the Royal couple just giving the stiff upper lip an airing?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540

    Victoria Beckham looks like she is attending a funeral.

    Quite a contrast with Amal Clooney! She looks permanently disgruntled....
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    edited May 2018

    I see from this thread that for the swivel-eyed Remainer loon pub-bores absolutely everything is about Brexit; they won’t change their minds, and they can’t stand someone trying to change the subject.

    (Snip)

    That's a bit uncalled for.
    It’s absolutely called for. The posters and their posts are obvious on this thread.

    They don’t like it up ‘em.
    Maybe it is because we are genuinely worried about it rather than what seems to be the attitude of many Leavers of "We won. Suck it up. Somebody sort it all out please because I need to get a jolly nice photo for my new blue passport"

    Brexit is the lens through which all current politics has to be viewed and was created by Cameron and his split party.

    I will stop wasting your time and go do something else
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    edited May 2018
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    brendan16 said:

    IMO as a floating voter, the way that Brexit is being handled has wiped out the Tory party's reputation for competence and planning. Regardless of what I think of Brexit itself, the handling of it is an utter shambles and the highly public divisions and splits do not instil much confidence either.

    They are not acting like a party. Unfortunately I cannot think of the correct collective noun to describe them. Perhaps a "Rabble of navel-gazers"?

    I cannot believe that they could advocate a coherent economic policy if they tried.

    I am afraid it just illustrates what a poor political class we have now compared to the past. There are some limited exceptions but we just have too many career politicians with little vision or capacity to deliver fundamental or radical change.

    I agree. Labour does not look like an alternative and there are no other likely options. We have to pick one of the two :(
    You don’t have to choose between Ebola and anthrax. It’s acceptable to abstain.
    No it isn’t. If would be acceptable if decisions didn’t have to be made, but since someone will have to govern it is imperative to make a choice.
    It isn’t imperative not to give either of the two main parties the legitimacy of my vote. They are both in different ways appalling and to be vigorously opposed.
    Nope. Having no govt is not an option, so you’re endorsing one by default.
    There will be a government. It will have to survive without my support.

    For the while, I shall be looking for the option most likely to secure paralysis. The current balance of power is one of the less bad options. A wibbly-wobbly Labour-Lib Dem-SNP minority government would be similarly less bad.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,547

    I see from this thread that for the swivel-eyed Remainer loon pub-bores absolutely everything is about Brexit; they won’t change their minds, and they can’t stand someone trying to change the subject.

    (Snip)

    That's a bit uncalled for.
    It’s absolutely called for. The posters and their posts are obvious on this thread.

    They don’t like it up ‘em.
    Well, I disagree.

    And there's a bigger issue here. Leaving my own opinion to one side: why shouldn't they think that everything is about Brexit? We're currently in a Schrodinger's Cat Brexit: nothing has been decided, and if it goes badly (*) then everything will be mucked up. A bad Brexit will leave nothing unharmed (and the opposite may be true as well).

    The uncertainty is the killer. This is one reason I thought a quick, hard Brexit was required. I hope I was wrong about that, but it's sadly looking more likely by the day.

    As for changing their minds: if the country voted in a Labour government under Corbyn, you wouldn't change your mind and suddenly become a Corbynite, would you? You'd accept the result, hold his government to account for their mistakes, and prepare for the next election (which you will be wanting ASAP).

    And the Brexiteers before the referendum were not open to changing their minds, and droned on about it until they got the referendum they wanted.

    It seems they're the ones who don't like their own behaviour up 'em ..

    (*) Which I hope it will not.
    Don’t encourage the obsessives. We are not discussing Brexit on this thread. We are discussing economic principles.

    The rest of your post is ad hominem and whataboutism. I’m not going to waste my time responding to it.
    Well, that last paragraph is wrong, and it's a shame that you think that. I might suggest you re-read what I wrote and think about it a little.

    But on another matter: PB is almost unusable for me atm, whether logged in or not, ,on multiple PCs and browsers. I've little idea what the 'eck is going on, but it's more than a little annoying to get comments coming in not only late, but sometimes out of order (from the timestamps).

    I know some people are having trouble with late comments, but is anyone else seeing out-of-order ones?

    (It'd be great if they could implement early comments as well as late ones, so we could see future comments now. Especially ones from after the Cup Final...)
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    I see from this thread that for the swivel-eyed Remainer loon pub-bores absolutely everything is about Brexit; they won’t change their minds, and they can’t stand someone trying to change the subject.

    (Snip)

    That's a bit uncalled for.
    It’s absolutely called for. The posters and their posts are obvious on this thread.

    They don’t like it up ‘em.
    Brexit dominates politics. This is a politics forum.

    You’ll have more luck going to a forum on the British monarchy and not talking about weddings today.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited May 2018

    I must admit, I cannot wait to see Charles take Meghan up the aisle.

    Not nearly as excitedly as waiting for the Duke of Edinburgh to bring out his joke book when he meets the mother of the bride.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    brendan16 said:

    IMO as a floating voter, the way that Brexit is being handled has wiped out the Tory party's reputation for competence and planning. Regardless of what I think of Brexit itself, the handling of it is an utter shambles and the highly public divisions and splits do not instil much confidence either.

    They are not acting like a party. Unfortunately I cannot think of the correct collective noun to describe them. Perhaps a "Rabble of navel-gazers"?

    I cannot believe that they could advocate a coherent economic policy if they tried.

    I am afraid it just illustrates what a poor political class we have now compared to the past. There are some limited exceptions but we just have too many career politicians with little vision or capacity to deliver fundamental or radical change.

    I agree. Labour does not look like an alternative and there are no other likely options. We have to pick one of the two :(
    You don’t have to choose between Ebola and anthrax. It’s acceptable to abstain.
    No it isn’t. If would be acceptable if decisions didn’t have to be made, but since someone will have to govern it is imperative to make a choice.
    It isn’t imperative not to give either of the two main parties the legitimacy of my vote. They are both in different ways appalling and to be vigorously opposed.
    Nope. Having no govt is not an option, so you’re endorsing one by default.
    There will be a government. It will have to survive without my support.

    For the while, I shall be looking for the option most likely to secure paralysis. The current balance of power is one of the less bad options. A wibbly-wobbly Labour-Lib Dem-SNP minority government would be similarly less bad.
    Abstaining does not get you off the hook. By not voting against May last year you endorsed the govt that emerged.
  • DeClareDeClare Posts: 483
    JackW said:

    DeClare said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    BBC - Harry becomes Duke of Sussex.

    At least it wasn't Duke of Clarence.

    Edit - I wonder if he will ever be made Duke of York or if this is where his run of titles will end and Louis will take York next. I suppose it may depend on whether Charles outlives the Queen or not.
    Or Gloucester.
    There's already a Duke of Gloucester!
    So there is ! (I confess my interest in such matters ends sometime around the Restoration.)
    I had no idea - which perhaps demonstrates how pointless these titles now are.
    That's funny?

    My BBC feed says Harry becomes Earl of Dumbarton and that Megan will be known as The Countess of Dumbarton.
    In Scotland. Just as the Prince of Wales is known as the Duke of Rothesay.
    Yes I see now, he's been given three titles: Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel.
    Those junior titles can be used respectively by a possible future eldest son and eldest son's eldest son, whilst Harry is still living, before they get promoted to future Dukes of Sussex.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038

    I see from this thread that for the swivel-eyed Remainer loon pub-bores absolutely everything is about Brexit; they won’t change their minds, and they can’t stand someone trying to change the subject.

    (Snip)

    That's a bit uncalled for.
    It’s absolutely called for. The posters and their posts are obvious on this thread.

    They don’t like it up ‘em.
    Maybe it is because we are genuinely worried about it rather than what seems to be the attitude of many Leavers of "We won. Suck it up. Somebody sort it all out please because I need to get a jolly nice photo for my new blue passport"

    Brexit is the lens through which all current politics has to be viewed and was created by Cameron and his split party.

    I will stop wasting your time and go do something else
    Everything doesn’t have to be viewed through that lens. It’s just some obsessively choose to do so.

    I’ve regularly made substantive points on Brexit on here, and shared my informed analysis and insight. Such posts are usually ignored, with a few honourable exceptions.

    Posters are far more interested in using this site as a public campaigning tool, venting, digging and ranting, and pushing their attack lines.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256


    There will be a government. It will have to survive without my support.

    For the while, I shall be looking for the option most likely to secure paralysis. The current balance of power is one of the less bad options. A wibbly-wobbly Labour-Lib Dem-SNP minority government would be similarly less bad.

    I did not vote in the locals. It was the first time in my adult life I have not voted and I felt I should have done.

    Much as I detest the two current parties, if there was an election tomorrow I would hold my nose and vote Labour
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038

    Mr. Royale, sometimes there are delays, although you're right that sometimes (not often, thankfully) payouts just don't happen. Still not happy Betfair Sportsbook didn't pay out properly when I backed Hamilton for a podium and he got one (alleged reason being he started in the pit lane, but that was known when I made the bet).

    Thanks. Yes, I will drop PP an email if there is a problem.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Sandpit said:

    Hans-Werner Sinn, economist at Munich University:

    “There is no possible solution to [Euro mess]. The catastrophe is happening. This is going to lead to the destruction of Europe, to say it bluntly. It will also bring AfD (Right-wing populists) to power in Germany,”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/05/17/italys-insurgents-enrage-germany-risk-ecb-payment-freeze/

    The only solution is massive fiscal transfers from Germany et al to Italy et al. Otherwise the Euro is unsustainable given the fiscal controls it imposes on the Southern states.
    Doubt that will happen (fiscal transfers). €250bn of Italian bonds already held by the ECB, which new Italian parties want to simply cancel iirc. Germans up in arms etc etc...
    I agree that the pressure for it not to happen will be immense, but the alternative is that countries like Italy leave the Euro in order to devalue their currency.

    The problem, as ever, is that the Grand Project of European Integration has been pushed too quickly, for it to have properly gained the consent of the people of Europe. The push to fiscal integration for political reasons has created fractures that are showing up now. Brexit was one manifestation of this, the crisis in Greece and now Italy are others. Italy is too big to be bailed out without massive fiscal transfers, its economy is almost exactly an order of magnitude bigger than that of Greece
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    Fun and games at Labour’s Lewisham East hustings, currently. The Momentum candidate and favourite to be nominated in danger of being kicked out.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Fun and games at Labour’s Lewisham East hustings, currently. The Momentum candidate and favourite to be nominated in danger of being kicked out.

    Fortunately this selection is for reality TV, not something important like a hung parliament deciding Brexit.

    Oh wait.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Roger said:

    JackW said:

    Excellent nod to the Jacobite cause from the Queen. Harry's Scottish title of Earl of Dumbarton has been revived.The father and son of the first creation served King James II and VII in exile.

    Hi Jack. I don't want to put you on the spot but a question that's been puzzling me about the future Dumbartons as they head towards their nuptials.

    If the father of the bride has just had a heart attack, rather than fretting over who'll give her away shouldn't they be making a bee-line to the hospital where the poor man is gravely ill?

    Or are the Royal couple just giving the stiff upper lip an airing?
    Hi Roger.

    Forgetting all the guff and speculation in the media arising out of his absence I think we should remind ourselves that father and daughter would have had many private conversations about what was best in the circumstances.

    FWIW I would think he wouldn't want anything to detract from her big day. I would think an early visit to the father is likely.

    All said when you cast away all the pomp, circumstance, flummery and media hullabaloo this is about two people in love and their public declaration of same in public - as any marriage is.

    I wish them great joy in their life together.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Interesting Irish perspective:

    https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/0518/964505-tony-connelly-brexit/

    Theresa May turning the Irish Protocol UK-wide is fraught with danger, both for her own position, and in terms of how squeamish the EU and other member states are about what appears to be a dizzying, last-minute somersault.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    Well ...
    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/997776396348002304?s=21
    Unfortunately, this clears the way for the awful Claudia Webbe. From a betting perspective that might mean a narrower Labour win, though.
  • ArtistArtist Posts: 1,882

    Fun and games at Labour’s Lewisham East hustings, currently. The Momentum candidate and favourite to be nominated in danger of being kicked out.

    Convenient for Corbyn that his pick is now the sole left challenger in a room possibly full of Momentum members.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,405
    Some of our neighbours have organised a street party. Union Jack bunting in front of our house. Serves me right for living in the Tory Shires.

    My wife and I have just sung Bandiera Rossa to make amends.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265

    On energy utilities, Corbyn is very interested in the non-profit, council run Robin Hood scheme up in Notts. Being rolled out to other council areas now iirc.

    I signed up for this when I was in Nottingham - had really good customer service. As I understand it, the pricing is tweaked to help low consumers, rather than the discount for bulk that you might expect.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    Victoria Beckham looks like she is attending a funeral.

    What - as the corpse?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Well ...
    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/997776396348002304?s=21
    Unfortunately, this clears the way for the awful Claudia Webbe. From a betting perspective that might mean a narrower Labour win, though.

    What a tangled Webbe they weave.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    DeClare said:

    JackW said:

    DeClare said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    BBC - Harry becomes Duke of Sussex.

    At least it wasn't Duke of Clarence.

    Edit - I wonder if he will ever be made Duke of York or if this is where his run of titles will end and Louis will take York next. I suppose it may depend on whether Charles outlives the Queen or not.
    Or Gloucester.
    There's already a Duke of Gloucester!
    So there is ! (I confess my interest in such matters ends sometime around the Restoration.)
    I had no idea - which perhaps demonstrates how pointless these titles now are.
    That's funny?

    My BBC feed says Harry becomes Earl of Dumbarton and that Megan will be known as The Countess of Dumbarton.
    In Scotland. Just as the Prince of Wales is known as the Duke of Rothesay.
    Yes I see now, he's been given three titles: Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel.
    Those junior titles can be used respectively by a possible future eldest son and eldest son's eldest son, whilst Harry is still living, before they get promoted to future Dukes of Sussex.
    Not quite.

    The children of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will be known as HRH Prince(ess) Name of Sussex. The eldest son will inherit the Dukedom on Harry's death.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    Artist said:

    Fun and games at Labour’s Lewisham East hustings, currently. The Momentum candidate and favourite to be nominated in danger of being kicked out.

    Convenient for Corbyn that his pick is now the sole left challenger in a room possibly full of Momentum members.

    Yep, funny that. Jeremy just loves localism and democracy - when it means he wins, of course.

  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    Fun and games at Labour’s Lewisham East hustings, currently. The Momentum candidate and favourite to be nominated in danger of being kicked out.

    To lose one candidate early in the race is unfortunate - to lose more....
    I'll get my handbag.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265



    Inadvertently you demonstrate how the two are similar. Politicians’ franchises run for five years. Yours was not renewed. Other potential franchise bidders will have taken note accordingly.

    No, it was advertent, if that's a word. The processes are indeed similar, but one is managed by the voters, the other by investors. Where there is a de facto monopoly, I think the voters should choose, and if I don't like the result, that's my problem and not a problem of the structure. It is possible that the voters were right to feel that the tram extension, good though it is now it's there, was not worth the enormous cost and disruption. Certainly it's a legitimate political stance: I put the alternative case, it was discussed intensely for years, and I failed to persuade enough people. Isn't that how it ought to work?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Fun and games at Labour’s Lewisham East hustings, currently. The Momentum candidate and favourite to be nominated in danger of being kicked out.

    Can lay Labour at 1.04 on BF, if anyone thinks there’s going to be a split or Lab independent standing?
    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28154066/market?marketId=1.143666825
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    Artist said:

    Fun and games at Labour’s Lewisham East hustings, currently. The Momentum candidate and favourite to be nominated in danger of being kicked out.

    Convenient for Corbyn that his pick is now the sole left challenger in a room possibly full of Momentum members.

    Yep, funny that. Jeremy just loves localism and democracy - when it means he wins, of course.

    Just imagine the shenanigans if he won an election - Israel might need a few more settlements and I'm not sure the Owen Jones types would survive even the early purges.
This discussion has been closed.