skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
He’s the PM not a dictator so he is not above question.
He’s the PM not a dictator so he is not above question.Just about everyone knows Boris is a twat. Hardly anyone tries to defend Boris. So what else is there to be said about Boris?
But many tried to defend Corbyn. So much more was said.
Nationalisation of rail and all utilities, together with free broadband for all and saying only the super rich will pay is ‘hard left’/‘looney left’
So is taking 10% of private limited companies and giving them to employees.
As was the underlying (longer term) threat to abolish all private schools.
There could be positive arguments for each of the above....but you would have to ignore the negatives/ramifications ie tens/hundreds of billions in costs (plus cost of borrowing), negative impact to pension schemes and investment into the UK, cost to public of schooling hundreds of thousands of additional
A lot of the rest of the manifesto would have been well supported (together with possibly a gradual returning of the railways into public hands)
Nationalisation is not a hard left policy. I've explained why ad nauseam
See my previous posts regarding giving a percentage of private companies to employees.
I worked for a company that did it and the CEO was once American CEO of the year. Do you think he was a hard line left winger?
I think there were flaws with what Labour proposed (which I've explianed in previous posts) but the general concept is a great idea which works well.
Nationalisation is not a hard left policy. I've explained why ad nauseam
See my previous posts regarding giving a percentage of private companies to employees.
I worked for a company that did it and the CEO was once American CEO of the year. Do you think he was a hard line left winger?
I think there were flaws with what Labour proposed (which I've explianed in previous posts) but the general concept is a great idea which works well.
If you're on about nationalisation some things shouldn't be ran for private benefit and as I've said many times we've nationalised the losses anywayIy is because it’s taking control of private companies and that’s hard socialism - it sends shockwaves across the FTSE and deters private investment
Even your justification - let the profit go to the state for redistribution is the stuff of Orwellian nightmares
As I’ve said there’s arguments for each of the policies if you ignore the negative implications !
I know the potential benefits of nationalisation ...but saying you would nationalise rail and utilities and give free broadband for all and there wouldn’t be a cost to the wider public is loony left !
companies gifting employees shares or having share schemes isn’t loony left (I’m all for it as it encourages employee ‘buy in’).....the state forcing all of companies of a certain size to do this, is !
I doubt if the share holders would agree, but the lefties wouldn’t give a fuck.Nationalisation is not a hard left policy. I've explained why ad nauseam
See my previous posts regarding giving a percentage of private companies to employees.
I worked for a company that did it and the CEO was once American CEO of the year. Do you think he was a hard line left winger?
I think there were flaws with what Labour proposed (which I've explianed in previous posts) but the general concept is a great idea which works well.
I doubt if the share holders would agree, but the lefties wouldn’t give a fuck.
One of the reasons we privatised the industries in the first place was because they became totally inefficient and dominated by the trade unionists who constantly used their power to push their political agenda, while starting strikes to hold the government to ransom. They were a constant drain on the tax payer, and the industries became outdated and underfunded, (in much the same way as the nhs is today)I've said in previous posts that Labour's broadband scheme is unachievable. I've based that on listening to experts, the same experts who've said the Tory scheme is also unrealistic.
I have also said previously that I think the Labour share scheme is a great idea but I had issues with some of their proposal and the main one was the size of the companies they wanted to include in it which was anyone with over 250 employees which in my opinion is far too small.
Dividends are paid to investors who have invested in the infrastructure.So take water - are you happy that your bill money is used to pay dividends to foreign investors rather than be spent on infrastructure? And if people who aren't are 'lefties' would it be fair to refer to those that are as facists?
Dividends are paid to investors who have invested in the infrastructure.
Hence the name INVESTORS! And where they reside is irrelevant.
I see Long-Bailey being touted as next Labour Leader. That would be a big mistake imo. Lisa Nandy seems the voice of reason to me.
I agree re: Long-Bailey, anyone endorsed by Corbyn and McDonnell should be automatically written off.I see Long-Bailey being touted as next Labour Leader. That would be a big mistake imo. Lisa Nandy seems the voice of reason to me.
Jess Phillip's is a decent option too.I read that the Tories biggest worry is Angela Rather though I have no idea how valid that claim.is
Jess Phillip's is a decent option too.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
I've heard both her and Nandy speak, a few platitudes about reconnecting with their base but absolutely no ideas as far as I can see.Not for me but in terms of taking the party forward I think she's a good shout.
As for the rail nationalisation hysteria, the easiest argument is to ask the private companies that run the railway to run it without subsidy, if they're so averse to state interference. That'll quickly establish whether a market really exists.
Tbh with you I don't really care whether it is nationalised or not it just needs to properly integrated (infrastructure, rolling stock and operation) which it isn't at the moment.I don’t disagree. This half in half out just isn’t working for the public. The fact that prices are increased at the max amount they can every year (even when service has been poor) has never sat well with me either.
I think because of the above, out of all potential nationalisations this is the one that would garner most public support
Network Rail is another example. The sole reason that U.K. train services are rated as high as they are compared to other European countries is its safety record since being brought back into public ownership following the disastrous private ownership of Railtrack where profits went to shareholders not reinvestment in the rail infrastructure which accumulated itself in the Hatfield rail crash.If you're on about nationalisation some things shouldn't be ran for private benefit and as I've said many times we've nationalised the losses anyway
New York, London, Hong Kong- hot beds of capitalism, all cities ran on nationalised transport systems. The two can work together
East coast rail was in government hands for 4 years. It was it's most successful 4 years of the last 2 decades. Not really an Orwellian nightmare that was it?
Iy is because it’s taking control of private companies and that’s hard socialism - it sends shockwaves across the FTSE and deters private investment
Even your justification - let the profit go to the state for redistribution is the stuff of Orwellian nightmares
Just about everyone knows Boris is a twat. Hardly anyone tries to defend Boris. So what else is there to be said about Boris?
But many tried to defend Corbyn. So much more was said.
Dividends are paid to investors who have invested in the infrastructure.
Hence the name INVESTORS! And where they reside is irrelevant.
So are you saying that the ideas were not wrong but agree that the ideas were wrong?I've said in previous posts that Labour's broadband scheme is unachievable. I've based that on listening to experts, the same experts who've said the Tory scheme is also unrealistic.
I have also said previously that I think the Labour share scheme is a great idea but I had issues with some of their proposal and the main one was the size of the companies they wanted to include in it which was anyone with over 250 employees which in my opinion is far too small.
Not automatically written off. But let's say more closely looked at.I agree re: Long-Bailey, anyone endorsed by Corbyn and McDonnell should be automatically written off.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
You didn't argue about Boris not getting defended.So you think it'd have been better if no-one had defended him? Do you think the criticism would've abated and everyone would have just turned around and said "well, that's Jeremy for you isn't it"?
Murdoch’s choice no doubt.... make of that what you will.Jess Phillip's is a decent option too.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
In which case lets stop subsidising things. At the moment is we're caught between state owned and privately owned. Taxpayers are expected to fund the non-profit making parts of an industry while others walk off with the profits. If we're rejecting publicly owned shouldn't we see that through to its conclusion?One of the reasons we privatised the industries in the first place was because they became totally inefficient and dominated by the trade unionists who constantly used their power to push their political agenda, while starting strikes to hold the government to ransom. They were a constant drain on the tax payer, and the industries became outdated and underfunded, (in much the same way as the nhs is today)
Why would anyone want to go back to that?
Shouldn't the Labour Party be left wing? Not sure many of the policies are that 'out there' compared to left wing parties in other parts of the world.Totally deluded still saying left wing policies are the way forward and supporting Corbyn/McDonnells ideology.
Left wing socialism is dead,People don’t want it what part do they not understand???
Can you explain to me why certain parties should be left wing and right wing?Shouldn't the Labour Party be left wing? Not sure many of the policies are that 'out there' compared to left wing parties in other parts of the world.
Maybe it shows a flaw in FPTP which doesn't really allow for anything more than a two party system. Or maybe it shows that everything has shifted to the right and perhaps it needs a third party to take the centre ground.
Think it does highlight a problem for Labour in so far as they need to decide what they want to be moving forward. If what the membership want is something that is deemed unelectable how do you get round that. Or should you even attempt to or just leave it as the party representing its members? After all other parties like the Greens aren't expecting to throw their beliefs out to come up with something that can win them an election.
Lib Dems should be doing so much better.Can you explain to me why certain parties should be left wing and right wing?
This is why we have people that will only ever vote Labour or Tories. The other parties will never get much of a chance. It is why one party overspends and the other party brings in austerity. Austerity affects less people than the side that ends austerity by spending.
What is wrong with a party closer to the middle.....similar to 'New Labour'?
Yes big mistakes were made. Like taking us to war on a lie, speeding up privatisation of the NHS or taking away decent pensions for all. But most of it worked. Labour voters had Labour in power and Tory voters had a government they could trust not to wreck the economy.
Left wing and right wing are ideals. But the most ideal is somewhere in the middle.
Can you explain to me why certain parties should be left wing and right wing?
This is why we have people that will only ever vote Labour or Tories. The other parties will never get much of a chance. It is why one party overspends and the other party brings in austerity. Austerity affects less people than the side that ends austerity by spending.
What is wrong with a party closer to the middle.....similar to 'New Labour'?
Yes big mistakes were made. Like taking us to war on a lie, speeding up privatisation of the NHS or taking away decent pensions for all. But most of it worked. Labour voters had Labour in power and Tory voters had a government they could trust not to wreck the economy.
Left wing and right wing are ideals. But the most ideal is somewhere in the middle.
Or jumping into bed with the Tories. My wife always voted for them until then. A vote for anyone but Tory wasn't good to help the ToriesLib Dems should be doing so much better.
I just wonder how much better they would have done without the stop Brexit policy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?