General Election 2019

[Zico]

26 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

In Germany, France, Holland, Austria, Denmark and many other neighbouring nations more people live in secure rents and social housing, wake up to mail delivered by a state mail company and travel to work on state run transport (trains and busses). Why can't it be done here?

It can but the majority of people will have to pay more tax, not just those nasty high earners (unless we want to try and be like Hollande’s France and they all

**** off somewhere else). And putting up taxes for the majority isn’t really a vote winner. 
 

Interesting comparison of tax take across European countries with IFS/OECD figures: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48988052

[Justin Z]

52 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

Instead of harassing Jewish celebrities like Rachel Riley. Corbyn supporters could be doing literally anything else with their day.

 

If you think discrediting and erasing the anti-Apartheid fight is a good look, you're probably not an anti-racist yourself.

[dobmisterdobster]

13 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Why would it cost more? Don’t we actually subsidise rail travel anyway and the money goes to private companies? So you’re effectively paying a fare and money to their shareholders through your taxes?

And the PO sell off was scandal. It was making money. 

Privatising Royal Mail allowed them to compete with private couriers. It was the right move.

[Spitonastranger]

31 minutes ago, Brighton Jambo said:

It can be done I just don’t think it is a good use of tax payers money.  

but giving a billion to the DUP was

[dobmisterdobster]

3 minutes ago, Spitonastranger said:

but giving a billion to the DUP was

If you mean one billion for Northern Ireland's infrastructure, then yes I'm OK with that.

[Spitonastranger]

Just now, dobmisterdobster said:

If you mean one billion for Northern Ireland's infrastructure, then yes I'm OK with that.

 

Just now, dobmisterdobster said:

If you mean one billion for Northern Ireland's infrastructure, then yes I'm OK with that.

Course you are and it wasn't to prop up a dead prime minister. Tories are unbelievable wont take a hit for anything, infrastructure

[dobmisterdobster]

6 minutes ago, Spitonastranger said:

 

Course you are and it wasn't to prop up a dead prime minister. Tories are unbelievable wont take a hit for anything, infrastructure

If Nicola secured a billion extra for the Scottish Government's budget in exchange for propping up Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn, would you complain?

[JamboX2]

44 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Im baffled at the anger that ones caused an all. 
Not everyone can afford everything. Internet is pretty much a necessity now. It might be a given for most of us working and earning decent but some people haven’t always got and being able to look for or apply for jobs or just keep in touch isnt a bad thing surely. 

 

 

Agree with you. Dare say the doom and gloom being forecasted wouldn't be the case. I think a lot of what was said on utilities and transport  - especially busses - makes so much sense. Lothian busses for all imo.

 

Living down south at the moment and have to say, water is a con job.

[Brighton Jambo]

23 minutes ago, Spitonastranger said:

but giving a billion to the DUP was

No that wasn’t but that was one billion versus hundreds of billions here.  They are not even in the same league when it comes to use of tax payers money so I don’t think the comparison contributes anything to the debate.  

[Brighton Jambo]

19 minutes ago, Spitonastranger said:

 

Course you are and it wasn't to prop up a dead prime minister. Tories are unbelievable wont take a hit for anything, infrastructure

What’s your point?  The SNP have said don’t even bother picking up the phone unless a second referendum is on offer.  That’s their price for supporting labour.  The DUP wanted cash.

 

why is one worse than the other, each small party has a demand/price for their support.  

 

The faux outrage on here is irritating.  

[ri Alban]

5 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

Proper devolution is the answer imo. I don’t think anyone would vote against that tbh. Why won’t they offer that? Why do you think? 

Devomax? Pointless, when you can have the real McCoy.

[Pans Jambo]

I would say internet is now an absolute necessity.

 

Even if you are unlucky enough to become unemployed or need to claim benefits guess what....you, you need to claim "on-line".

 

Your Bank Accounts - "on-line".

Your Credit Card - "on line".

Your Home insurance - "on-line".

Your utilities - "on-line".

Your personal taxes - "on-line".

Tell the council the street light is broken - "on-line".

Pay for your TV Licence - "on-line".

Digital TV - "on-line".

Pay your car road tax - "on-line".

Car Insurance - "on-line".

Book a slot to "meet the teacher" at your kids school - "on-line".

Book a holiday - "on-line".

E-mails - "on-line".

 

And it goes on & on & on & on.

 

Not a nice to have, an absolute necessity to get by in life nowadays.

 

[Unknown user]

55 minutes ago, Brighton Jambo said:

It can be done I just don’t think it is a good use of tax payers money.  

 

The dutch make money from these services, in fact the dutch government make money from our railways too as Abellio are a subsidiary of NS, the state owned train operator. 

Why do we think private companies want to run them? To make losses?

 

And anyway, lets just say you were right, why on earth shouldn't taxpayer money go to services that taxpayers use?

[Craig_]

F-ing Lib Dems trying to confuse pensioners into thinking they're reading the actual Evening News and not some propaganda:

 

[ri Alban]

24 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

If Nicola secured a billion extra for the Scottish Government's budget in exchange for propping up Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn, would you complain?

You would!

[Brighton Jambo]

45 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

I would say internet is now an absolute necessity.

 

Even if you are unlucky enough to become unemployed or need to claim benefits guess what....you, you need to claim "on-line".

 

Your Bank Accounts - "on-line".

Your Credit Card - "on line".

Your Home insurance - "on-line".

Your utilities - "on-line".

Your personal taxes - "on-line".

Tell the council the street light is broken - "on-line".

Pay for your TV Licence - "on-line".

Digital TV - "on-line".

Pay your car road tax - "on-line".

Car Insurance - "on-line".

Book a slot to "meet the teacher" at your kids school - "on-line".

Book a holiday - "on-line".

E-mails - "on-line".

 

And it goes on & on & on & on.

 

Not a nice to have, an absolute necessity to get by in life nowadays.

 

I agree that internet is a necessity but surely there is a more cost effective way of making sure people have access than forcing a private company to be nationalised.  What other options have been explored before we commit to that level of public spending?!

[dobmisterdobster]

Food is a necessity. Does that mean the government needs to own farms or supermarkets?

[Victorian]

I think it's a belting manifesto.    I don't even care if it isn't fully delivered.     There's a hell of a lot to like and a lot to fear for the tiny minority of super-elite.

 

The country needs a different model to more of the same gross inequalities.    This makes a start.   

 

I'll still vote SNP because it's an SNP / Tory battle in my constituency.    Labour not likely to challenge.     

[Brighton Jambo]

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

 

The dutch make money from these services, in fact the dutch government make money from our railways too as Abellio are a subsidiary of NS, the state owned train operator. 

Why do we think private companies want to run them? To make losses?

 

And anyway, lets just say you were right, why on earth shouldn't taxpayer money go to services that taxpayers use?

Because it’s hundreds of billions of pounds of tax payers money onto services that not everyone uses regularly in the case of things like train services.

 

and it’s tens of billions for things like nationalising the Royal Mail.  Tell me honestly do you think the mail service is so bad we should spend billions nationalising it?  If so please explain why? 

 

I fundamentally don’t believe nationalisation is the answer to problems.  By all means set very tough rules for private companies and if they fail to meet them they lose the franchise immediately.  But nationalisation as done here also sets barriers to things like suitable remuneration for employees and leaders, what’s wrong with that I hear you cry, well it means these services lose their expertise, their talent and fail to attract new blood of a calibre to keep driving performance, improvement or innovation.  These services then also become like the public sector departments, hugely bureaucratic,  fat, slow, complacent and unable to change.  So the service to the public doesn’t improve, these profits you talk about aren’t realised and all this is done at our expense.  

 

That is what history tells us.  People who look back for example at the ‘golden era’ of British rail are either lying to themselves or weren’t around.  Same with the likes of BT.

 

 

 

Edited November 21, 2019 by Brighton Jambo

[Justin Z]

1 minute ago, Brighton Jambo said:

Because it’s hundreds of billions of pounds of tax payers money onto services that not everyone uses regularly in the case of things like train services.

 

and it’s tens of billions for things like nationalising the Royal Mail.  Tell me honestly do you think the mail service is so bad we should spend billions nationalising it?  If so please explain why? 

 

I fundamentally don’t believe nationalisation is the answer to problems.  By all means set very tough rules for private companies and if they fail to meet them they lose the franchise immediately.  But nationalisation as done here also sets barriers to things like suitable remuneration for employees and leaders, what’s wrong with that I hear you cry, well it means these services lose their expertise, their talent and fail to attract new blood of a calibre to keep driving performance, improvement or innovation.  These services then also become like the public sector departments, hugely bureaucratic,  fat, slow, complacent and unable to change.  So the service to the public doesn’t improve, these profits you talk about aren’t realised and all this is done at our expense. 

 

If only there were a democratic process by which we could collectively punish politicians who allow nationalised services to languish 🤔

[Brighton Jambo]

3 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

If only there were a democratic process by which we could collectively punish politicians who allow nationalised services to languish 🤔

Haha yes good point.  But once that investment is made punishing them later makes little difference.  The money is sunk and we all pay for it.  

[Justin Z]

1 minute ago, Brighton Jambo said:

Haha yes good point.  But once that investment is made punishing them later makes little difference.  The money is sunk and we all pay for it.  

 

True. Sadly we don't have an engaged, educated enough electorate for that to be as effective as it could be.

[Unknown user]

38 minutes ago, Brighton Jambo said:

Because it’s hundreds of billions of pounds of tax payers money onto services that not everyone uses regularly in the case of things like train services.

 

and it’s tens of billions for things like nationalising the Royal Mail.  Tell me honestly do you think the mail service is so bad we should spend billions nationalising it?  If so please explain why? 

 

I fundamentally don’t believe nationalisation is the answer to problems.  By all means set very tough rules for private companies and if they fail to meet them they lose the franchise immediately.  But nationalisation as done here also sets barriers to things like suitable remuneration for employees and leaders, what’s wrong with that I hear you cry, well it means these services lose their expertise, their talent and fail to attract new blood of a calibre to keep driving performance, improvement or innovation.  These services then also become like the public sector departments, hugely bureaucratic,  fat, slow, complacent and unable to change.  So the service to the public doesn’t improve, these profits you talk about aren’t realised and all this is done at our expense.  

 

That is what history tells us.  People who look back for example at the ‘golden era’ of British rail are either lying to themselves or weren’t around.  Same with the likes of BT.

 

Yeah but that's just the right's view on the nationalised bogeyman, it doesn't have to be like that.

 

There's no reason why a company 100% owned by the government but operating under the same conditions as a private company couldn't be successful in winning contracts both here and abroad when tendered, couldn't take over from private companies who break the terms of their contracts. It doesn't need to be the Orwellian nightmare the Tories predict.

 

[Brighton Jambo]

2 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Yeah but that's just the right's view on the nationalised bogeyman, it doesn't have to be like that.

 

There's no reason why a company 100% owned by the government but operating under the same conditions as a private company couldn't be successful in winning contracts both here and abroad when tendered, couldn't take over from private companies who break the terms of their contracts. It doesn't need to be the Orwellian nightmare the Tories predict.

 

It may be the ‘rights’ view but based on history it’s not an unreasonable one.  In this country we have never managed that model successfully before and if you think Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott have the capability to put those structures in place them I’m sorry but I don’t agree with you.  

 

Its unicorn land stuff based on the current labour shadow cabinet.  

[Unknown user]

7 minutes ago, Brighton Jambo said:

It may be the ‘rights’ view but based on history it’s not an unreasonable one.  In this country we have never managed that model successfully before and if you think Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott have the capability to put those structures in place them I’m sorry but I don’t agree with you.  

 

Its unicorn land stuff based on the current labour shadow cabinet.  

 

We've never tried that model before.

 

It's simple, a competitive company that doesnt pour profits into the pockets of the already very rich, but into the public purse instead.

 

Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott don't need to be special when the new company can hire people who actually know what they're talking about, same as many private companies do.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Smithee

[Diadora Van Basten]

I think housing is an area were the state needs to step in. People need places to live and housing is so expensive that the younger generation need somewhere to live. Since 1998 the PRS has risen from 5% of the housing stock to 15% whilst social rental sector has shrunk from 21% to 12%.

 

The PRS is ok for transient workers and students but not really geared up for people who want to put down roots and raise a family.

 

Building council houses would be a better solution and also reduce welfare spending.

[Victorian]

Due to the Tories and Labour both proposing large borrowing to invest in services, etc,   Krishnan Guru Murthy put it to Andrew Mitchell that the Tories don't have their normal accusation against Labour that it is bad to increase borrowing and that economic levers are better to raise revenues.    Mitchell said that "well there's a difference between say borrowing against your mortgage and borrowing on your credit card,   shall we say".

 

You can't invent that kind of instant deceit.

[John Findlay]

13 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

We've never tried that model before.

 

It's simple, a competitive company that doesnt pour profits into the pockets of the already very rich, but into the public purse instead.

 

Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott don't need to be special when the new company can hire people who actually know what they're talking about, same as many private companies do.

Yes we did. Failed miserably.

[Cade]

"Nobody uses trains anyhow" Except for the entire north east of England and central belt of Scotland and many other commuter heavy zones.

"We've never run nationalised trains properly" Except for the east coast main line which was shovelling tons of cash into the treasury when it was in public hands just a few years ago then disastrously returned into private hands who made an erse of it.

 

[Victorian]

Brexit Party candidate in a key marginal saying the Tories have thrown the kitchen sink of bribes at him to stand aside.    Saying he's got a great deal of evidence to provide if it "ever came to an investigation".      

[Victorian]

Just think what reliable,   affordable transport networks can do for economic growth and productivity.     The Tories themselves are productivity zealots.

 

Nah... let's just keep the unreliable,  expensive railways.      

[Unknown user]

6 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

Yes we did. Failed miserably.

 

I stand corrected, who was that?

 

[Pans Jambo]

That Gove is a gobshite! 

 

[John Findlay]

4 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

I stand corrected, who was that?

 

British Leyland

[Cade]

https://thebrexitparty.com/

 

 

[kingantti1874]

Labour manifesto.. we will spend one trillion pounds 😂 how will you rise it 😂😂 we will tax the rich 😂😂😂 

 

stupid commies.

[King prawn]

[Jambo-Jimbo]

19 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

British Leyland

 

With cars like the Austin Allegro, Metro & Maestro in it's stable, it always puzzled me why it went defunct.  🤣

[Unknown user]

20 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

British Leyland

 

fair enough, before my time but I'm only in my 40s! It's been done successfully several times since 1986 when they died though, I'd expect a slightly more modern outlook and approach!

 

The core of it is this though - how come a private company could make money from our trains while a company with shares owned by the government couldn't?

[John Findlay]

2 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

fair enough, before my time but I'm only in my 40s! It's been done successfully several times since 1986 when they died though, I'd expect a slightly more modern outlook and approach!

 

The core of it is this though - how come a private company could make money from our trains while a company with shares owned by the government couldn't?

Because politicians struggle to run a bath 

[The Mighty Thor]

That Priti Patel interview, that the Conservative Party's pet broadcaster, paid for by you and me, removed, is a case study in callous bare faced lying.

 

In the pantheon of absolutely horrendous Tory shitehawks, she is a doozy. 

 

 

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, John Findlay said:

Because politicians struggle to run a bath 

 

Thankfully they'd have little to do with it

[RobboM]

2 hours ago, Brighton Jambo said:

I agree that internet is a necessity but surely there is a more cost effective way of making sure people have access than forcing a private company to be nationalised.  What other options have been explored before we commit to that level of public spending?!

The Government's own report into Future telecoms Infrastructure options. A national monopoly was one of those options considered and is cost effective in providing 100% coverage (summary on p11) nb I haven't read all 103 pages! but just demonstrates it is not an off the cuff back of a fag packet assessment
 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/727890/FTIR_Annex_A_-_FE_Report.pdf

[coconut doug]

1 hour ago, John Findlay said:

Yes we did. Failed miserably.

 

No we haven't. Some of our Nationalised industries ran at a profit (BT CEGB) but most of the losses incurred by nationalised industries were social interventions mainly to prevent closure and loss of jobs due to a chronic under investment by their private owners (railway companies, steel industry coal mines). Much of these industries got substantial government investment and vastly improved working conditions including H+S.

The most profitable bits of nationalised industries were then privatised (Specialist steel. Jaguar, land Rover. Amersham International BNFL Coal mines with coal near the surface )leaving the taxpayer to support the less profitable remainder and giving the Tories an excuse to hammer the working class with their overmanning and British working man won't work slogans, which have stuck to this day.

 Nationalised industry was not allowed to be successful, could you imagine what a successful state owned industry would do for Tory dogma? Better to sell the successful bits, allow them to be asset stripped and the technology stolen by rivals. All at the taxpayers expense and to the extreme detriment of the country. 

 Can you guess which is the next piece of our national infrastucture is to be starved of funds broken up and sold off. 

[Spitonastranger]

4 hours ago, Brighton Jambo said:

What’s your point?  The SNP have said don’t even bother picking up the phone unless a second referendum is on offer.  That’s their price for supporting labour.  The DUP wanted cash.

 

why is one worse than the other, each small party has a demand/price for their support.  

 

The faux outrage on here is irritating.  

Who said anything about the SNP the tories found a magic money tree that's what my answer was about but you go to whatabouttery 

[RobboM]

Boris Johnson chickens out of a leaders debate on C4

[Justin Z]

1 hour ago, Zlatanable said:

Alan Sugar uses it to mean 'crap'. 

I was watching The Apprentice then BBC Debate Night whilst drinking red wine. A combination that often leads to me being grumpy. 

 

Listening to Alan Sugar will do that to the best of people

[gjcc]

4 hours ago, dobmisterdobster said:

Food is a necessity. Does that mean the government needs to own farms or supermarkets?

Nah. Not when they have food banks to pick up the tab. 

[RobboM]

Sky report that the Tories received 26 times more than Labour in reportable (ie large) donations.

It would actually have been 27 times except for the Foreign Exchange fees the Tories incurred for the Rubles 😁

https://news.sky.com/story/general-election-tories-earn-nearly-26-times-more-than-labour-in-reportable-donations-11866522

[Cade]

Nationalised industry making money for the treasury so we can afford better social care programs = evil communism

 

Taxpayers money being used to subsidise private firms that then take the profits offshore = glorious liberalism