FlyTheNest

A haven
It is currently Tue 14 Aug, 2018 9:24 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Welcome to FTN. New posters are welcome to join the conversation. You can follow us on Twitter @FlythenestHaven You are responsible for the content you post. This is a public forum. Treat it as if you are speaking in a crowded room. Site admin and Moderators are volunteers who will respond as quickly as they are able to when made aware of any complaints. Please do not post copyrighted material without the original authors permission.



Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 138 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 7:39 am 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:40 pm
Posts: 20839
Has thanked: 17011 times
Been thanked: 30557 times
Morning.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... r-patients


GPs issuing thousands more fit notes for patients


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 8:08 am 
Online
Prime Minister

Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 11:18 am
Posts: 10262
Has thanked: 20067 times
Been thanked: 18167 times
Good morfternoon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 8:13 am 
Offline
Chief Whip

Joined: Sun 29 Nov, 2015 1:24 pm
Posts: 1148
Has thanked: 4257 times
Been thanked: 1793 times
John McD on Toady now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 8:27 am 
Offline
Chancellor

Joined: Mon 23 Feb, 2015 8:23 am
Posts: 1937
Has thanked: 13043 times
Been thanked: 3947 times
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... tory-party
"Anna Soubry: I am not sorry for calling on May to 'sling out' Brexit MPs"
Quote:
She added: “Perhaps for the first time ever in the Conservative party people are equally determined that they are not going to get their own way. I am prepared to compromise – they are not – and we are fed up.”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 8:49 am 
Offline
Chief Whip

Joined: Sun 29 Nov, 2015 1:24 pm
Posts: 1148
Has thanked: 4257 times
Been thanked: 1793 times
Continuing on fom the very first early- morning BBC news two words stick in the mind about John McD's forthcoming speech .

"Workers, and Irreversible."

Nick Robinson conducted a very silly and hectoring interview on Today, where J McD was very sensible !

The Water Companies have taken out £18bn in dividends over ten years, they are loaded to the gunwales with debt, and ''prices have increased 40%'' . (Don't know if that was in real terms or not ...)

Of course it finished with the standard question on Brexit policy, and the standard answer ....." zzzzz :-) "


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 10:40 am 
Online
Speaker of the House

Joined: Thu 28 Aug, 2014 9:51 am
Posts: 2401
Has thanked: 5481 times
Been thanked: 5638 times
Britain's Brexit self-punishment
http://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.co. ... l?spref=tw
Quote:
What is never on display from the Brexiters is any kind of practical plan to deliver what they want. That is fundamentally because what they want is undeliverable – in essence, undiluted political nationalism as well as undiluted economic globalism – and secondarily because by refusing to recognize that impossibility they are unable to come up with some diluted version of it which, if not desirable, might at least be achievable.


Theresa May's Looming Brexit Disaster
http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot. ... aster.html
Quote:
This week Theresa May has been at pains to say Britain is leaving the single market and will not be in the customs union. At pains. Once again, because party management comes before all else for the leader of this accursed outfit, she is totally unnecessarily allowing the hard right zealots in her party to hold her hostage even though they haven't the numbers, the unity nor the nous to deliver the hard Brexit they want on their terms.

Will the 'sensible' tories ever stand up and be counted, or will they let the country go down the pan.

_________________
One world, like it or not - John Martyn


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 10:47 am 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 1:40 pm
Posts: 4919
Has thanked: 10184 times
Been thanked: 12090 times
Because of the way the Tories privatised water it will be extremely expensive to renationalise. I think its necessary to do so. Indeed I think it a far higher priority than renationalising rail, but given the bias within our media, making the case for water renationalisation against the huge costs, as long as the public are misled over how government finance works and how the assets balance out the debt, will be challenging. I wonder if it was perhaps better when it was just a quiet, overlooked policy in the manifesto providing a mandate to just get on and do it if and when Labour ever get voted into office.

_________________
“Find a nice, self sufficient hilltop, and fortify it.” - The Kraken Wakes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 10:57 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:27 pm
Posts: 6015
Has thanked: 2077 times
Been thanked: 9950 times
Willow904 wrote:
Because of the way the Tories privatised water it will be extremely expensive to renationalise. I think its necessary to do so. Indeed I think it a far higher priority than renationalising rail, but given the bias within our media, making the case for water renationalisation against the huge costs, as long as the public are misled over how government finance works and how the assets balance out the debt, will be challenging. I wonder if it was perhaps better when it was just a quiet, overlooked policy in the manifesto providing a mandate to just get on and do it if and when Labour ever get voted into office.

But isn't McDonnell right that if you compensate shareholders with government bonds it costs nothing? You just issue them, make money from the utilities and pay the bondholders back in due course.

The message that needs to get out is that the government (and us) will win here because these utilities make a lot of money that will be heading to the Treasury instead of to shareholders.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 11:03 am 
Offline
Chief Whip

Joined: Sun 29 Nov, 2015 1:24 pm
Posts: 1148
Has thanked: 4257 times
Been thanked: 1793 times
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
Because of the way the Tories privatised water it will be extremely expensive to renationalise. I think its necessary to do so. Indeed I think it a far higher priority than renationalising rail, but given the bias within our media, making the case for water renationalisation against the huge costs, as long as the public are misled over how government finance works and how the assets balance out the debt, will be challenging. I wonder if it was perhaps better when it was just a quiet, overlooked policy in the manifesto providing a mandate to just get on and do it if and when Labour ever get voted into office.

But isn't McDonnell right that if you compensate shareholders with government bonds it costs nothing? You just issue them, make money from the utilities and pay the bondholders back in due course.

The message that needs to get out is that the government (and us) will win here because these utilities make a lot of money that will be heading to the Treasury instead of to shareholders.

Interesting though to see how you fix the coupon on those bonds ... :-)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 11:06 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:27 pm
Posts: 6015
Has thanked: 2077 times
Been thanked: 9950 times
frog222 wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
Because of the way the Tories privatised water it will be extremely expensive to renationalise. I think its necessary to do so. Indeed I think it a far higher priority than renationalising rail, but given the bias within our media, making the case for water renationalisation against the huge costs, as long as the public are misled over how government finance works and how the assets balance out the debt, will be challenging. I wonder if it was perhaps better when it was just a quiet, overlooked policy in the manifesto providing a mandate to just get on and do it if and when Labour ever get voted into office.

But isn't McDonnell right that if you compensate shareholders with government bonds it costs nothing? You just issue them, make money from the utilities and pay the bondholders back in due course.

The message that needs to get out is that the government (and us) will win here because these utilities make a lot of money that will be heading to the Treasury instead of to shareholders.

Interesting though to see how you fix the coupon on those bonds ... :-)

That's well beyond my capacity frog.

But the principle seems fine to me. Taking profit-making utilities into public ownership can't possibly be bad for government finances in my simplified view of the world!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 11:07 am 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 1:40 pm
Posts: 4919
Has thanked: 10184 times
Been thanked: 12090 times
gilsey wrote:
Britain's Brexit self-punishment
http://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.co. ... l?spref=tw
Quote:
What is never on display from the Brexiters is any kind of practical plan to deliver what they want. That is fundamentally because what they want is undeliverable – in essence, undiluted political nationalism as well as undiluted economic globalism – and secondarily because by refusing to recognize that impossibility they are unable to come up with some diluted version of it which, if not desirable, might at least be achievable.


Theresa May's Looming Brexit Disaster
http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot. ... aster.html
Quote:
This week Theresa May has been at pains to say Britain is leaving the single market and will not be in the customs union. At pains. Once again, because party management comes before all else for the leader of this accursed outfit, she is totally unnecessarily allowing the hard right zealots in her party to hold her hostage even though they haven't the numbers, the unity nor the nous to deliver the hard Brexit they want on their terms.

Will the 'sensible' tories ever stand up and be counted, or will they let the country go down the pan.

I suppose May's real problem isn't so much the minority of hard Brexit MPs as the majority of hard Brexit Tory voters. Brexit is the only thing keeping the Tories in power. If she goes for a soft Brexit the press will destroy her and the votes could fall away and with them her position as leader. If Barnier forces a soft Brexit upon her at the eleventh hour, however, is it possible she could make it to March 2019 without a leadership challenge and thus without a damaging cliff edge "no deal" break from the EU? Certainly I find it hard to believe she is genuinely pursuing a hard Brexit - no one could possibly want to leave behind that kind of legacy and May seems to me to be a person who cares about their legacy. She will look for opportunities to blame the EU and blame the opposition, to try to convince Tory leave voters she was on their side but constrained by circumstance and the hardliners in the party could struggle to denounce and overthrow her because of the hard Brexit language she has used.

It's just a theory. And she has never been a staunch remainer, so there's no real reason to assume she's playing such a game, yet at the same time it's so blindingly obvious that a hard Brexit will be economically disastrous I find it hard to believe a serious politician (as opposed to an over-privileged man-child like Rees-Mogg) would truly go through with it.

_________________
“Find a nice, self sufficient hilltop, and fortify it.” - The Kraken Wakes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 11:19 am 
Online
Speaker of the House

Joined: Thu 28 Aug, 2014 9:51 am
Posts: 2401
Has thanked: 5481 times
Been thanked: 5638 times
Willow904 wrote:
It's just a theory. And she has never been a staunch remainer, so there's no real reason to assume she's playing such a game, yet at the same time it's so blindingly obvious that a hard Brexit will be economically disastrous I find it hard to believe a serious politician (as opposed to an over-privileged man-child like Rees-Mogg) would truly go through with it.

Is May a deep enigma, or is there really nothing there? We don't really have any clue, all we know is that she thinks words are a substitute for action.
Is she a serious politician?

_________________
One world, like it or not - John Martyn


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 11:26 am 
Online
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 8:26 pm
Posts: 7708
Has thanked: 770 times
Been thanked: 16532 times
Very good post there Willow, I must admit my own reasoning on this is pretty similar.

And that is a beautiful description of JRM ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 11:39 am 
Offline
First Secretary of State

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 3211
Has thanked: 860 times
Been thanked: 5547 times
Good morning

Can I add my compliments to Willow's post

I do have some sympathy for both Corbyn and May in that they are in an invidious position and someone will be very disappointed by the way they move

It is interesting that May would find it more politically expedient to move to hard Brexit and Corbyn more to the FBPE position. Neither are convinced that provides the way to true salvation really - and I understand why

That does not mean that the tactics and overall competence (of May especially as she actually has something concrete to deliver) cannot be roundly criticised

The people I am still perplexed by are the Tory Remainers - we are told that they are the majority on the backbenchers and are committed to s soft brexit. They have, however, shown no inclination to demonstrate that (apart from very few specific cases) and the excuse that is expected is they do not want to be seen supporting Labour front bench amendments - I find that a really poor excuse. I am not convinced that Soubry and Clarke have too much support on this on the backbenchers either and that we can make some erroneous assumptions of their motivations if we are not careful

Soubry may be saying the right things on Brexit but she has still an appalling record on voting for the destructive policies of this Government so you will not find me showering her with praise and almost treating her as 'one of us' - the arch-architect of a lot of pour problems. Osborne, is also in the same boat


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 11:54 am 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 1:40 pm
Posts: 4919
Has thanked: 10184 times
Been thanked: 12090 times
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
Because of the way the Tories privatised water it will be extremely expensive to renationalise. I think its necessary to do so. Indeed I think it a far higher priority than renationalising rail, but given the bias within our media, making the case for water renationalisation against the huge costs, as long as the public are misled over how government finance works and how the assets balance out the debt, will be challenging. I wonder if it was perhaps better when it was just a quiet, overlooked policy in the manifesto providing a mandate to just get on and do it if and when Labour ever get voted into office.

But isn't McDonnell right that if you compensate shareholders with government bonds it costs nothing? You just issue them, make money from the utilities and pay the bondholders back in due course.

The message that needs to get out is that the government (and us) will win here because these utilities make a lot of money that will be heading to the Treasury instead of to shareholders.


My point is that because the Tories sold off all the reservoirs and infrastructure, they have to be bought back at market values - currently estimated at £67bn, a pretty hefty sum. Being right that the borrowing is offset by gaining an asset isn't going to stop the right wing press from throwing these big numbers around and claiming we can't afford it. And we'll probably be overpaying in reality as these private companies have been boosting their dividends with unsustainable high debt ratios that won't be justifiable when taken back into the public sector. We were ripped off by the Tories when they privatised water leaving us having to pay through the nose to get it back. Unfortunately I don't think there is a pain free way of getting round that. If Labour want to make the case for water renationalisation then the need for control over vital infrastructure and the looming threat of private company collapse a la Carillion could provide some compelling arguments. It's definitely in the country's interest. I just feel the cost can't be ignored completely and to try to could make Labour appear unrealistic.

_________________
“Find a nice, self sufficient hilltop, and fortify it.” - The Kraken Wakes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 12:04 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:27 pm
Posts: 6015
Has thanked: 2077 times
Been thanked: 9950 times
Willow904 wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
Because of the way the Tories privatised water it will be extremely expensive to renationalise. I think its necessary to do so. Indeed I think it a far higher priority than renationalising rail, but given the bias within our media, making the case for water renationalisation against the huge costs, as long as the public are misled over how government finance works and how the assets balance out the debt, will be challenging. I wonder if it was perhaps better when it was just a quiet, overlooked policy in the manifesto providing a mandate to just get on and do it if and when Labour ever get voted into office.

But isn't McDonnell right that if you compensate shareholders with government bonds it costs nothing? You just issue them, make money from the utilities and pay the bondholders back in due course.

The message that needs to get out is that the government (and us) will win here because these utilities make a lot of money that will be heading to the Treasury instead of to shareholders.


My point is that because the Tories sold off all the reservoirs and infrastructure, they have to be bought back at market values - currently estimated at £67bn, a pretty hefty sum. Being right that the borrowing is offset by gaining an asset isn't going to stop the right wing press from throwing these big numbers around and claiming we can't afford it. And we'll probably be overpaying in reality as these private companies have been boosting their dividends with unsustainable high debt ratios that won't be justifiable when taken back into the public sector. We were ripped off by the Tories when they privatised water leaving us having to pay through the nose to get it back. Unfortunately I don't think there is a pain free way of getting round that. If Labour want to make the case for water renationalisation then the need for control over vital infrastructure and the looming threat of private company collapse a la Carillion could provide some compelling arguments. It's definitely in the country's interest. I just feel the cost can't be ignored completely and to try to could make Labour appear unrealistic.

I agree it will take some uncharacteristically grown up discussions in public, but perhaps people are ready for this. At least McDonnell has started to make the case.

Governments with sovereign currencies can just issue bonds if it's obvious there is economic benefit. People need to understand this. Essentially it's what was done with the banks isn't it? Though they were much less attractive investment propositions than the utilities.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 12:22 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 1:40 pm
Posts: 4919
Has thanked: 10184 times
Been thanked: 12090 times
gilsey wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
It's just a theory. And she has never been a staunch remainer, so there's no real reason to assume she's playing such a game, yet at the same time it's so blindingly obvious that a hard Brexit will be economically disastrous I find it hard to believe a serious politician (as opposed to an over-privileged man-child like Rees-Mogg) would truly go through with it.

Is May a deep enigma, or is there really nothing there? We don't really have any clue, all we know is that she thinks words are a substitute for action.
Is she a serious politician?
,
I think May worked long and hard to get where she is, a no small feat given her lack of charm or basic competence, so in terms of paying her dues and waiting her turn, she is certainly a serious politician. I don't think she's deep, but she's certainly proved she's tenacious. She appears determined to see Brexit through and given her general lack of ability it seems to me any Brexit she delivers is unlikely to resemble the Brexit she says she's going for, whether genuinely desired or just for show, as to date she's simply accepted what she's given. As such, bar an election, she seems the best hope for anti-Brexiters.

_________________
“Find a nice, self sufficient hilltop, and fortify it.” - The Kraken Wakes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 12:34 pm 
Offline
First Secretary of State

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 3211
Has thanked: 860 times
Been thanked: 5547 times
Willow904 wrote:
gilsey wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
It's just a theory. And she has never been a staunch remainer, so there's no real reason to assume she's playing such a game, yet at the same time it's so blindingly obvious that a hard Brexit will be economically disastrous I find it hard to believe a serious politician (as opposed to an over-privileged man-child like Rees-Mogg) would truly go through with it.

Is May a deep enigma, or is there really nothing there? We don't really have any clue, all we know is that she thinks words are a substitute for action.
Is she a serious politician?
,
I think May worked long and hard to get where she is, a no small feat given her lack of charm or basic competence, so in terms of paying her dues and waiting her turn, she is certainly a serious politician. I don't think she's deep, but she's certainly proved she's tenacious. She appears determined to see Brexit through and given her general lack of ability it seems to me any Brexit she delivers is unlikely to resemble the Brexit she says she's going for, whether genuinely desired or just for show, as to date she's simply accepted what she's given. As such, bar an election, she seems the best hope for anti-Brexiters.


That last sentence may be correct if certain assumptions are made

The problem she has though is that there are more than 48 MPs who would object to her position and so she would be subject to a leadership challenge if she was going soft on Brexit

The outcome would then depend on who the MPs put in front of the members - the Tory members will go right wing

She will obviously try to stall as much as she can but there are two thins against that - the need to legalise the withdrawal agreement by late spring and the sheer annoyance of the EU who would not seem to be in the mood to offer much in the way of an olive branch to the current mob


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 12:39 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:27 pm
Posts: 6015
Has thanked: 2077 times
Been thanked: 9950 times
John McDonnell and the 'Preston model'

https://party.coop/2018/02/08/co-operat ... ss-the-uk/

co-operative-party-to-work-with-labour-to-rebuild-local-economies-across-the-uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 1:24 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 1:40 pm
Posts: 4919
Has thanked: 10184 times
Been thanked: 12090 times
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
But isn't McDonnell right that if you compensate shareholders with government bonds it costs nothing? You just issue them, make money from the utilities and pay the bondholders back in due course.

The message that needs to get out is that the government (and us) will win here because these utilities make a lot of money that will be heading to the Treasury instead of to shareholders.


My point is that because the Tories sold off all the reservoirs and infrastructure, they have to be bought back at market values - currently estimated at £67bn, a pretty hefty sum. Being right that the borrowing is offset by gaining an asset isn't going to stop the right wing press from throwing these big numbers around and claiming we can't afford it. And we'll probably be overpaying in reality as these private companies have been boosting their dividends with unsustainable high debt ratios that won't be justifiable when taken back into the public sector. We were ripped off by the Tories when they privatised water leaving us having to pay through the nose to get it back. Unfortunately I don't think there is a pain free way of getting round that. If Labour want to make the case for water renationalisation then the need for control over vital infrastructure and the looming threat of private company collapse a la Carillion could provide some compelling arguments. It's definitely in the country's interest. I just feel the cost can't be ignored completely and to try to could make Labour appear unrealistic.

I agree it will take some uncharacteristically grown up discussions in public, but perhaps people are ready for this. At least McDonnell has started to make the case.

Governments with sovereign currencies can just issue bonds if it's obvious there is economic benefit. People need to understand this. Essentially it's what was done with the banks isn't it? Though they were much less attractive investment propositions than the utilities.


I still feel renationalising water is something Labour just need to do when they get the chance, without too much fanfare. As long as it's in the manifesto, the mandate is there to do it, so they should just do it. That way you don't run the risk of the right wing press turning the policy toxic with big numbers and fake economics, which they will certainly try to do.

_________________
“Find a nice, self sufficient hilltop, and fortify it.” - The Kraken Wakes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 1:37 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 10:18 pm
Posts: 9949
Has thanked: 1615 times
Been thanked: 13032 times
I think a big report on outsourcing/ state ownership is needed. The rail case exists, for sure, but it's been bolstered by bullshit.

Do something like the fiscal advisory group. Pick friends of Labour, no need for libertarians for balance, but make sure you get experts in £67bn is a lot of money.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 1:57 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 8:18 pm
Posts: 7169
Has thanked: 7549 times
Been thanked: 11549 times
Quote:
Brexit represents chance to rethink food labelling and tackle Britain's obesity crisis, say councils
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 02226.html


Hadn't realised the EU prevented us from labelling food appropriately.
https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/labell ... slation_en

Bloody Europe eh.

_________________
LET'S FACE IT I'M JUST 'KIN' SEETHIN'


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 2:04 pm 
Offline
Chief Whip

Joined: Sun 29 Nov, 2015 1:24 pm
Posts: 1148
Has thanked: 4257 times
Been thanked: 1793 times
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
I think a big report on outsourcing/ state ownership is needed. The rail case exists, for sure, but it's been bolstered by bullshit.

Do something like the fiscal advisory group. Pick friends of Labour, no need for libertarians for balance, but make sure you get experts in £67bn is a lot of money.

Writers at the FT appear to be unanimous that the present state is an "organised rip-off"(sic), with even Mr Gove agreeing . As of last September the companies' debts totalled some £42bn, while they were still gaily paying dividends .

The regulator is totally bloody useless.

https://www.ft.com/content/2beee56a-961 ... 88e51488a0

Richard Murphy agrees with the above author that some kind of not-for-profit, public interest company would be an answer .

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/?s=w ... vatisation


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 2:09 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
Water is easily the best case for nationalisation.

Rail the worst (it largely already is).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 2:28 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 1:40 pm
Posts: 4919
Has thanked: 10184 times
Been thanked: 12090 times
frog222 wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
I think a big report on outsourcing/ state ownership is needed. The rail case exists, for sure, but it's been bolstered by bullshit.

Do something like the fiscal advisory group. Pick friends of Labour, no need for libertarians for balance, but make sure you get experts in £67bn is a lot of money.

Writers at the FT appear to be unanimous that the present state is an "organised rip-off"(sic), with even Mr Gove agreeing . As of last September the companies' debts totalled some £42bn, while they were still gaily paying dividends .

The regulator is totally bloody useless.

https://www.ft.com/content/2beee56a-961 ... 88e51488a0

Richard Murphy agrees with the above author that some kind of not-for-profit, public interest company would be an answer .

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/?s=w ... vatisation


Like Welsh Water?

Certainly works well enough, but then so does Scottish water, which is nationalised. I'm not certain, but a straight renationalisation would seem more straightforward to achieve. How do you engineer a not-for-profit buy out of current ownership?

_________________
“Find a nice, self sufficient hilltop, and fortify it.” - The Kraken Wakes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 2:42 pm 
Online
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2014 11:22 am
Posts: 14961
Has thanked: 82585 times
Been thanked: 13583 times
Good-afternoon, everyone


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 2:46 pm 
Offline
Chancellor

Joined: Mon 23 Feb, 2015 8:23 am
Posts: 1937
Has thanked: 13043 times
Been thanked: 3947 times
SpinningHugo wrote:
Water is easily the best case for nationalisation.

Rail the worst (it largely already is).


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 89651.html
"Why we might have to nationalise the British car industry after Brexit" 8-)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 2:55 pm 
Online
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2014 11:22 am
Posts: 14961
Has thanked: 82585 times
Been thanked: 13583 times
Willow904 wrote:
---
How do you engineer a not-for-profit buy out of current ownership?
(cJA edit)
If the not-for-profit buyer is national government with a manifesto commitment, pass a law in Parliament and make it happen. I don't know if doing so is wise or necessary. Theresa May thinks she's a customer, others might think a compulsory purchase on this scale is outlandish (if it's in the best interests of people and country, then it's not, in my opinion).

There's a fundamental difference between an elected government responsible for the well being of all people and nation and a private company doing business in that country. The two aren't equal. Government is the higher power. The government is the representative of all the people.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 2:58 pm 
Online
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2014 11:22 am
Posts: 14961
Has thanked: 82585 times
Been thanked: 13583 times
I'll never forget the PM calling herself a customer of Carillion in the Commons


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 3:01 pm 
Online
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2014 11:22 am
Posts: 14961
Has thanked: 82585 times
Been thanked: 13583 times
Quote:
Carillion links put fracking firm’s scheme in doubt
North Yorkshire project halted for inquiry into stability of Third Energy, whose chairman is former chief executive of outsourcing giant

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ird-energy
Good, stay the hell out.
By the way, national government didn't have a problem running roughshod over community objections there in favour of private industry, did they?
Quote:
"energy secretary Greg Clark has ordered the start of drilling at Kirby Misperton to be put on hold pending an investigation into the “financial resilience” of Third Energy. Clark’s move, taken after the collapse of outsourcing firm Carillion, came as protest groups and Labour politicians drew attention to the fact that Carillion’s former chief executive, Keith Cochrane, is now the non-executive chairman of Third Energy."
(cJA emphasis)
Excellent


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 3:06 pm 
Online
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2014 11:22 am
Posts: 14961
Has thanked: 82585 times
Been thanked: 13583 times
Quote:
Alan Whitehead MP, shadow minister for energy and climate change, said: “The Tories continue to press ahead with fracking across Yorkshire against the wishes of local communities, despite the environmental risks and suggestions that the economic opportunities are considerably less than initially projected.

“Serious questions need to be asked as to why the instability of this company was only noticed now, just before fracking was due to start and worryingly there appears to be an element of involvement of former Carillion executives in the company.

“Labour would ban fracking, instead investing in renewable and low-carbon energy projects to build the clean economy of the future.”
:rock: :rock: :rock: :rock:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 3:32 pm 
Online
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 8:26 pm
Posts: 7708
Has thanked: 770 times
Been thanked: 16532 times
Fracking is potentially a big vote loser for the Tories, without question.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 3:40 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 8:18 pm
Posts: 7169
Has thanked: 7549 times
Been thanked: 11549 times
the only thing i have been entirely consistent on during the course of my life is opposing the Tories and their i'm alright jack mentality

just so you know

_________________
LET'S FACE IT I'M JUST 'KIN' SEETHIN'


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 3:52 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 1:40 pm
Posts: 4919
Has thanked: 10184 times
Been thanked: 12090 times
citizenJA wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
---
How do you engineer a not-for-profit buy out of current ownership?
(cJA edit)
If the not-for-profit buyer is national government with a manifesto commitment, pass a law in Parliament and make it happen. I don't know if doing so is wise or necessary. Theresa May thinks she's a customer, others might think a compulsory purchase on this scale is outlandish (if it's in the best interests of people and country, then it's not, in my opinion).

There's a fundamental difference between an elected government responsible for the well being of all people and nation and a private company doing business in that country. The two aren't equal. Government is the higher power. The government is the representative of all the people.


I think we're at cross purposes. If the buyer is the government, then that's what I would describe as a straightforward renationalisation, which I thought would be easier to achieve than a Welsh Water arrangement, where a not-for-profit company picked up the pieces of a collapsed super utility which the for profit sector appeared to pass over on account of its liabilities. i.e. it came about haphazardly rather than the result of a deliberate plan. Renationalisation just makes more sense to me as a deliberate plan.

_________________
“Find a nice, self sufficient hilltop, and fortify it.” - The Kraken Wakes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 4:01 pm 
Offline
Chief Whip

Joined: Sun 29 Nov, 2015 1:24 pm
Posts: 1148
Has thanked: 4257 times
Been thanked: 1793 times
Willow904 wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
---
How do you engineer a not-for-profit buy out of current ownership?
(cJA edit)
If the not-for-profit buyer is national government with a manifesto commitment, pass a law in Parliament and make it happen. I don't know if doing so is wise or necessary. Theresa May thinks she's a customer, others might think a compulsory purchase on this scale is outlandish (if it's in the best interests of people and country, then it's not, in my opinion).

There's a fundamental difference between an elected government responsible for the well being of all people and nation and a private company doing business in that country. The two aren't equal. Government is the higher power. The government is the representative of all the people.


I think we're at cross purposes. If the buyer is the government, then that's what I would describe as a straightforward renationalisation, which I thought would be easier to achieve than a Welsh Water arrangement, where a not-for-profit company picked up the pieces of a collapsed super utility which the for profit sector appeared to pass over on account of its liabilities. i.e. it came about haphazardly rather than the result of a deliberate plan. Renationalisation just makes more sense to me as a deliberate plan.


I didn't know about Welsh Water !

Willow904 wrote:
frog222 wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
I think a big report on outsourcing/ state ownership is needed. The rail case exists, for sure, but it's been bolstered by bullshit.

Do something like the fiscal advisory group. Pick friends of Labour, no need for libertarians for balance, but make sure you get experts in £67bn is a lot of money.

Writers at the FT appear to be unanimous that the present state is an "organised rip-off"(sic), with even Mr Gove agreeing . As of last September the companies' debts totalled some £42bn, while they were still gaily paying dividends .

The regulator is totally bloody useless.

https://www.ft.com/content/2beee56a-961 ... 88e51488a0

Richard Murphy agrees with the above author that some kind of not-for-profit, public interest company would be an answer .

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/?s=w ... vatisation


Like Welsh Water?

Certainly works well enough, but then so does Scottish water, which is nationalised. I'm not certain, but a straight renationalisation would seem more straightforward to achieve. How do you engineer a not-for-profit buy out of current ownership?


Make them an offer they can't refuse :-)

Do it by regions I supppose...

It'd have to be an exchange of some sort, they getting some sort of bonds, probably very long term as discussed by Richard Murphy. At the mom they are making out like utter and complete bandits, so pressure must be applied, perhaps through chasing up the tax cheating angle .

Gove at Environment has already been doing some of that, some already closing their offshore entities, but much more to be done on those crazy debt leverls v. dividends (see Carillion) ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 4:10 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:40 pm
Posts: 20839
Has thanked: 17011 times
Been thanked: 30557 times
Chris Peace.

Average age of voters must have been in the eighties.I didn't ask for a Frankie Howard impersonation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 4:14 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:40 pm
Posts: 20839
Has thanked: 17011 times
Been thanked: 30557 times
Standout candidate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 4:15 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:40 pm
Posts: 20839
Has thanked: 17011 times
Been thanked: 30557 times
About 300 there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 4:21 pm 
Online
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 8:26 pm
Posts: 7708
Has thanked: 770 times
Been thanked: 16532 times
HindleA wrote:
Chris Peace.

Average age of voters must have been in the eighties.I didn't ask for a Frankie Howard impersonation.


Mean, mode or median though?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 4:25 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:40 pm
Posts: 20839
Has thanked: 17011 times
Been thanked: 30557 times
Mode,though the mean wouldn't have been much less,a handful of under 60.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 4:27 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:40 pm
Posts: 20839
Has thanked: 17011 times
Been thanked: 30557 times
Harry Barnes still involved(ex MP)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 4:34 pm 
Online
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 8:26 pm
Posts: 7708
Has thanked: 770 times
Been thanked: 16532 times
HindleA wrote:
Harry Barnes still involved(ex MP)


Good bloke.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 4:45 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:40 pm
Posts: 20839
Has thanked: 17011 times
Been thanked: 30557 times
Non postal votes clarification.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 5:02 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 8:18 pm
Posts: 7169
Has thanked: 7549 times
Been thanked: 11549 times
Don't cry for Brits Europeans...


_________________
LET'S FACE IT I'M JUST 'KIN' SEETHIN'


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 5:04 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 8:18 pm
Posts: 7169
Has thanked: 7549 times
Been thanked: 11549 times
Heeeey Europeans

_________________
LET'S FACE IT I'M JUST 'KIN' SEETHIN'


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 5:08 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 8:18 pm
Posts: 7169
Has thanked: 7549 times
Been thanked: 11549 times
What a monumental waste of time it all is

_________________
LET'S FACE IT I'M JUST 'KIN' SEETHIN'


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 5:13 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:40 pm
Posts: 20839
Has thanked: 17011 times
Been thanked: 30557 times
Tarquin didn't get entry,I did warn him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 5:35 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:40 pm
Posts: 20839
Has thanked: 17011 times
Been thanked: 30557 times
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... ssion=true


Scathing secret reviews of Tories' flagship benefit shake-up detailed for the first time

https://www.parliament.uk/business/comm ... ort-17-19/


Universal Credit project reviews reveal biggest challenges still to come


They've all fucked off.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 5:40 pm 
Online
Prime Minister

Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 11:18 am
Posts: 10262
Has thanked: 20067 times
Been thanked: 18167 times
HindleA wrote:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/scathing-secret-reviews-tories-flagship-11987618.amp?__twitter_impression=true


Scathing secret reviews of Tories' flagship benefit shake-up detailed for the first time

https://www.parliament.uk/business/comm ... ort-17-19/


Universal Credit project reviews reveal biggest challenges still to come


They've all fucked off.





Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2018 5:57 pm 
Online
Prime Minister

Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 11:18 am
Posts: 10262
Has thanked: 20067 times
Been thanked: 18167 times
PTO


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 138 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], citizenJA, gilsey, PorFavor, refitman, RogerOThornhill and 40 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group