Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020
-
- Posts: 2103
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
- Been Liked: 500 times
- Has Liked: 509 times
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
.
Last edited by If it be your will on Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 7301
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
- Been Liked: 1823 times
- Has Liked: 3948 times
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
Given that no one has thus far - so far as I'm aware - attempted to implement the radical type of programme that was being advocated by IIBYW, I fail to see how anyone can provide anything other than an "opinion" piece. But the Guardian article tries to address most of the points.CrosspoolClarets wrote:
A shame that you asked for a non opinion piece and nil desp shared.....an opinion piece.
.
It's rather like the arguments that Ringo makes about evidence versus fact.
Expert opinion based on research suggests that there was nothing in Corbyn's 2017 manifesto that would / could have been blocked by the EU, but it hasn't been tested as he wasn't elected to try to implement it. So we can only rely on evidence based opinion.
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
Market forces, basically.Lancasterclaret wrote:And it depends on how you want to monopolise the utilities. if you want to seize then ala proper left wing loon states, then yeah, you've got an issue, but buying them back into the state over time? Not sure anything stopping that.
Suppose that the government decides to launch a takeover of all the utility companies What's it cost, £100 billion? All into the hands of shareholders. Yippee. I have some United Utilities shares.
And then what? Well, the directors and shareholders of all these companies realise that the government is committed to buy them out, no matter what, name your price. So they set up new companies, they undercut the bloated government company, and the government company loses customers. So it has to buy all the new companies. And the directors get richer, and start up yet more companies, and all the foreign investors realise that the government will pay them any price they ask to buy infinite numbers of new companies, and it all gets a little bit expensive.
You've assumed that the energy market is static. It isn't.
-
- Posts: 2103
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
- Been Liked: 500 times
- Has Liked: 509 times
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
.
Last edited by If it be your will on Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Posts: 23343
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
- Been Liked: 8058 times
- Has Liked: 4714 times
- Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
Oh, I appreciate your position, I just don't see how voting for farage to try to get a lexit is anyway justifiable.If it be your will wrote:Answers below yours. Are you starting to at least appreciate my position? Learning about the above has taken ages, because the media haven't done it for me.
Put it one way, if Farage was leading remain, with all his baggage, then I could not and would not vote for him.
And there is scope for compromise between the pure vision of what Corybn wants and what is possible.
There is always room to do something under EU rules and regulations, and its never a reason to vote for Farage, simply because he will take that and use it to stop or change everything you stand for.
-
- Posts: 2103
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
- Been Liked: 500 times
- Has Liked: 509 times
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
.
Last edited by If it be your will on Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 2103
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
- Been Liked: 500 times
- Has Liked: 509 times
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
.
Last edited by If it be your will on Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
Out of curiosity, what specific rules are these? My place also competes against the big 4 but I can't think of any EU rules that are stacked against us.CrosspoolClarets wrote:Agree. I don’t agree entirely with all the aspirations but I do agree that a sovereign nation should be able to do it.
A shame that you asked for a non opinion piece and nil desp shared.....an opinion piece.
I feel the same way about the competitiveness of very small companies. I have to compete against the big 4 for work, billion pound companies, and all the rules are stacked in their favour by the EU (I’m not moaning, I get my fair share of wins anyway ).
-
- Posts: 23343
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
- Been Liked: 8058 times
- Has Liked: 4714 times
- Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
As the Labour Manifesto of 2017 accepted us leaving the EU, then this is all a bit of a moot point I think.If it be your will wrote:This isn't the case. As an example, the 4th railway package is utterly unequivocal. That monopoly railway system most of the electorate want (and what the Swiss already have) is not allowed under EU rules. This isn't an opinion, it's just really clear and obvious! This is straight from the horse's mouth: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/ra ... es/2013_en" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The market pillar will complete the process of gradual market opening started with the 1st railway package. It establishes the general right for railway undertakings established in one Member State to operate all types of passenger services everywhere in the EU, lays down rules aimed at improving impartiality in the governance of railway infrastructure and preventing discrimination and introduces the principle of mandatory tendering for public service contracts in rail. Competition in rail passenger service markets will encourage railway operators to become more responsive to customer needs, improve the quality of their services and their cost-effectiveness. The competitive tendering of public service contracts will enable savings of public money. The market pillar is expected to deliver more choice and better quality of rail services for European citizens, these being the overriding objectives.
I'm painstakingly explaining to you, Lancaster, and Andrew JB, using direct sources, that the 'opinion' in the media is deliberately misrepresenting the left-wing case for leaving the EU. Is the above paragraph in any way debatable at all, or is it now completely clear that we cannot have a state monopoly railway system in the EU? What better source is there than the EU Commission's own website?
The shift in labour members and votes between 2017-current is now massively in favour of remain, so I think they have either accepted that all the above can't be done (unlikely) or that they can achieve a hell of a lot more of it within the EU than they would do outside it (likely)
-
- Posts: 23343
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
- Been Liked: 8058 times
- Has Liked: 4714 times
- Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
Because you need rules.If it be your will wrote:I'm forced to ask, if this were true, why bother having them?
You seriously don't think we won't have to adhere to a different set of rules if we leave the EU do you?
I'm well aware I'm veering into more regulation and trading areas than what you mentioned but they still have to be abided by.
I mean, how would we go about renationalising the railways, the utility companies outside of the EU in anything other than a couple of terms of parliament at the very least?
I genuinely don't know how feasible that is to be honest (other than taking over the franchises as and when they run out)
-
- Posts: 2103
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
- Been Liked: 500 times
- Has Liked: 509 times
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
.
Last edited by If it be your will on Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
What you're describing here though is a success for the consumer. Prices are being pushed down (your assumption that the government company will be bloated and overpriced seems a little biased) and to be successful they'll need to constantly undercut. Not many will have pockets deep enough for thatdsr wrote:Market forces, basically.
Suppose that the government decides to launch a takeover of all the utility companies What's it cost, £100 billion? All into the hands of shareholders. Yippee. I have some United Utilities shares.
And then what? Well, the directors and shareholders of all these companies realise that the government is committed to buy them out, no matter what, name your price. So they set up new companies, they undercut the bloated government company, and the government company loses customers. So it has to buy all the new companies. And the directors get richer, and start up yet more companies, and all the foreign investors realise that the government will pay them any price they ask to buy infinite numbers of new companies, and it all gets a little bit expensive.
You've assumed that the energy market is static. It isn't.
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
Government companies usually are bloated and overpriced. I don't think a state monopoly run by a Corbyn government would be any better.aggi wrote:What you're describing here though is a success for the consumer. Prices are being pushed down (your assumption that the government company will be bloated and overpriced seems a little biased) and to be successful they'll need to constantly undercut. Not many will have pockets deep enough for that
The point of Lancaster's cheme of nationalisation is that the government doesn't get customers by being cheaper or better than the existing companies, it gets customers by buying them out. And since getting into the energy market is relatively cheap, since relatively little infrastructure is needed, and since under Lancaster's scheme all start-ups would know they have a guaranteed takeover bid already prepared to line their pockets (making loans easy to get), then the obstacles to continued re-entering the market wouldn't be hard to overcome.
-
- Posts: 2103
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
- Been Liked: 500 times
- Has Liked: 509 times
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
.
Last edited by If it be your will on Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
Is that really true? The NHS always scores well on value compared to private markets like the US.dsr wrote:Government companies usually are bloated and overpriced. I don't think a state monopoly run by a Corbyn government would be any better.
The point of Lancaster's cheme of nationalisation is that the government doesn't get customers by being cheaper or better than the existing companies, it gets customers by buying them out. And since getting into the energy market is relatively cheap, since relatively little infrastructure is needed, and since under Lancaster's scheme all start-ups would know they have a guaranteed takeover bid already prepared to line their pockets (making loans easy to get), then the obstacles to continued re-entering the market wouldn't be hard to overcome.
The point is that prices can be reduced by economies of scale and lack of requirement for dividends, etc.
Your premise that nationalised services are more expensive may be true (although not necessarily) but, more importantly, make the whole idea pointless if true.
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
British Railaggi wrote:Is that really true? The NHS always scores well on value compared to private markets like the US.
The point is that prices can be reduced by economies of scale and lack of requirement for dividends, etc.
Your premise that nationalised services are more expensive may be true (although not necessarily) but, more importantly, make the whole idea pointless if true.
British Leyland
British Telecom
Royal Mail (still in a bit of a mess now, but that's largely because of the EU/UK government rules to try and create competition where it shouldn't be. Royal Mail is one area, privatised or otherwise, where artificial competition ought to be either removed or made fair.)
Do you remember how appalling these companies used to be? To get a new phone, for example - you had to go on a waiting list. 6 months was not unusual. British Rail, regardless of what people may think about the railways now, was worse then. British Leyland is still a national joke, 40 years on.
It may be that Corbyn's government would be more competent, more financially savvy, and less in thrall to the unions that Wilson's government was. But I won't hold my breath.
-
- Posts: 19799
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
- Been Liked: 5483 times
- Has Liked: 2540 times
- Location: Burnley, Lancs
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
dsr wrote:British Rail
British Leyland
British Telecom
Royal Mail (still in a bit of a mess now, but that's largely because of the EU/UK government rules to try and create competition where it shouldn't be. Royal Mail is one area, privatised or otherwise, where artificial competition ought to be either removed or made fair.)
Do you remember how appalling these companies used to be? To get a new phone, for example - you had to go on a waiting list. 6 months was not unusual. British Rail, regardless of what people may think about the railways now, was worse then. British Leyland is still a national joke, 40 years on.
It may be that Corbyn's government would be more competent, more financially savvy, and less in thrall to the unions that Wilson's government was. But I won't hold my breath.
Other nations run their nationalised railways very successfully. I imagine many of them reached that success after running them unsuccessfully. What makes Britain different that we are too incapable of running our own railways as successfully as other countries?
Why don't you Believe in Britain™?
-
- Posts: 14566
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3435 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
Why doesn't he believe in Britain?
Do you mean the government running things like they used to, that turned out to be utter toss, like the things he listed?
Can't imagine...
Do you mean the government running things like they used to, that turned out to be utter toss, like the things he listed?
Can't imagine...
-
- Posts: 1349
- Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 2:08 pm
- Been Liked: 217 times
- Has Liked: 543 times
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
This.dsr wrote:British Rail
British Leyland
British Telecom
Royal Mail (still in a bit of a mess now, but that's largely because of the EU/UK government rules to try and create competition where it shouldn't be. Royal Mail is one area, privatised or otherwise, where artificial competition ought to be either removed or made fair.)
Do you remember how appalling these companies used to be? To get a new phone, for example - you had to go on a waiting list. 6 months was not unusual. British Rail, regardless of what people may think about the railways now, was worse then. British Leyland is still a national joke, 40 years on.
It may be that Corbyn's government would be more competent, more financially savvy, and less in thrall to the unions that Wilson's government was. But I won't hold my breath.
EU competition rules hamstrung Royal Mail, forcing them to open their network up to competition from foreign companies who cherry picked the profitable bits of the business, while having no obligation to the loss making USO. Remember when TNT tried to deliver mail in London ? The staff were zero hours, minimum wage, and they still couldn't turn a profit.
-
- Posts: 5231
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:00 pm
- Been Liked: 1623 times
- Has Liked: 397 times
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
I have to be careful here because I don’t want it to be specifically written that the big 4 lobby the EU (and the U.K. government with their EU style mindset these days) and get a set of rules that in effect are barriers to entry which benefit them. I believe those things may happen, but of course I don’t know definitely that they do happen (but I do live in the real world).aggi wrote:Out of curiosity, what specific rules are these? My place also competes against the big 4 but I can't think of any EU rules that are stacked against us.
The biggie was the move towards framework agreements in the 2004 directive which was then tightened further in the 2014 directive to allow only 2 companies on a framework - having to submit hundreds of pages of evidence to go on a framework for a few years, with all contracts called off this framework, meaning those not on it are not able to tender. The U.K. government was then forced to adopt these agreements (and no doubt has done it with more enthusiasm than was necessary).
Frameworks tend to be very general so if you are choosing a handful of firms to sit on one you would never choose a one man band with a narrow specialism, you would choose a firm with 100 partners who can adapt to any type of contract. It is a huge barrier to entry. Even if I could get on them, I would have to spend weeks writing the bid when I don’t have a dedicated bid team, there is no guarantee of a contract at the end of it, just a right to tender for further contracts, and time is money. You strike me as someone who works for a medium to large firm (guess) who may be able to sneak onto these arrangements and have administrative support, but I do not.
The irony is that the public sector then gets a worse service because arguably more skilled and cheaper people (in some instances) are blocked from tendering. There is at least 1 client of mine where one of the big 4 has a blanket contract for all work, but because they don’t possess my specialist expertise I am able to work alongside them. A rarity.
I now have to go and write a report for a country’s government not in the EU, then next week I fly out to do work for another government, also not in the EU. See the pattern?
-
- Posts: 813
- Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 6:39 pm
- Been Liked: 180 times
- Has Liked: 97 times
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
The UK is a democratic country .....I'm just taking the p***
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
The EU has a strong neo-liberal element to it, but this is counterbalanced by other elements, both nationalist, and leftwing / green - and I don't think any one of these elements could prevent a general rebalancing of Britain's economy by a Corbyn government, because the actions of said government would have different interpretations depending on which element of thought is looking at it. Within the EU charter the fundamentals are; democratic government and institutions, a raft of freedoms and rights for people, the rule of law, etc - and the key thing will be for these to be maintained. Within this framework countries have a great deal of freedom to set up their societies and economies as their governments wish. Gordon Brown for example ran a massive bailout operation during the financial crisis - and I don't recall Britain being punished for contravening state aid rules. And nor when the East Coast Mainline came back under government control twice due to the failure of the private companies operating it. By the same token, parts of Germany's economy were put under a four day week, with the government kicking in the extra pay for workers. In the big picture, with all the issues the EU is facing I can't see them kicking up a fuss about anything in the 2017 manifesto.If it be your will wrote:Ah, now that argument I totally accept. There are huge risks to leaving. There are huge benefits to remaining. But the point I've been making is that huge chunks of Corbyn's manifesto cannot be implemented as an EU member. It may be true that most Labour members have accepted Corbyn's (very popular) manifesto cannot be implemented inside the EU, but have also decided, on balance, the risks of leaving are just too great. If this is the case, I'm not one of them.
I happen to doubt this. I happen to think a lot of Corbyn supporters don't realise just how restrictive EU rules are, and if they did, there would be more left-wing leavers.
-
- Posts: 2103
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
- Been Liked: 500 times
- Has Liked: 509 times
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
.
Last edited by If it be your will on Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 1349
- Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 2:08 pm
- Been Liked: 217 times
- Has Liked: 543 times
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
Think on, Labour voting brexiteers.
https://twitter.com/PaulEmbery/status/1 ... 7016227846" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://twitter.com/PaulEmbery/status/1 ... 7016227846" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
- Posts: 2103
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
- Been Liked: 500 times
- Has Liked: 509 times
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
.
Last edited by If it be your will on Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 25697
- Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
- Been Liked: 4644 times
- Has Liked: 9849 times
- Location: Glasgow
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
Local elections should be fought on local issues,i know this doesn't always happen,Andrew Adonis is a terrible candidate selection,Farage et al will use his previous quotes to win over wavering leave voters,even more bizarrely he's standing in the South West region,hardly a hotbed of remain,now if he'd made the London list,i could see the logic.
He is also a peer,so this just looks like another politician leaping on the EU gravy train,i bet Nigel can't believe his luck,Labour and the Tories keep scoring own-goals.
Is it any wonder grass-roots Conservative activists are cheesed off,and many are not campaigning in the proposed EU elections.
https://www.conservativehome.com/platfo ... place.html
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -elections
Judging by rumours this is common in most local Conservative associations,many members are openly stating they will vote for the Brexit party.
He is also a peer,so this just looks like another politician leaping on the EU gravy train,i bet Nigel can't believe his luck,Labour and the Tories keep scoring own-goals.
Is it any wonder grass-roots Conservative activists are cheesed off,and many are not campaigning in the proposed EU elections.
https://www.conservativehome.com/platfo ... place.html
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -elections
Judging by rumours this is common in most local Conservative associations,many members are openly stating they will vote for the Brexit party.
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
It won't be long before the German taxpayer will question the validity of an organisation that they are funding and some of the members of this wonderful organisation keep wanting more and more no matter how they they dress it up it's a begging bowl.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/greece-ask-ge ... 41941.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/greece-ask-ge ... 41941.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
- Posts: 14566
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3435 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
€300 billion is a staggering amount of moneybfcjg wrote:It won't be long before the German taxpayer will question the validity of an organisation that they are funding and some of the members of this wonderful organisation keep wanting more and more no matter how they they dress it up it's a begging bowl.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/greece-ask-ge ... 41941.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I think their national debt is around €400 billion, so that's one way to get most of it wiped out.
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
The Tories really do seem behind having a second vote if the first one doesn't have the desired result. The 1922 committee are debating calls for them to change the party leadership rules to allow a new vote of no confidence in May.
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
Thanks for the response. I didn't realise you were only talking about the public sector which is why I haven't come across the issue. Interestingly the UK government claims that they negotiated with the EU to have the 2014 directive less restrictive for small companies whereas you view that as it being tightened up. I know plenty of one man bands who do public sector work but I don't know how that relates to your specific circumstances.CrosspoolClarets wrote:I have to be careful here because I don’t want it to be specifically written that the big 4 lobby the EU (and the U.K. government with their EU style mindset these days) and get a set of rules that in effect are barriers to entry which benefit them. I believe those things may happen, but of course I don’t know definitely that they do happen (but I do live in the real world).
The biggie was the move towards framework agreements in the 2004 directive which was then tightened further in the 2014 directive to allow only 2 companies on a framework - having to submit hundreds of pages of evidence to go on a framework for a few years, with all contracts called off this framework, meaning those not on it are not able to tender. The U.K. government was then forced to adopt these agreements (and no doubt has done it with more enthusiasm than was necessary).
Frameworks tend to be very general so if you are choosing a handful of firms to sit on one you would never choose a one man band with a narrow specialism, you would choose a firm with 100 partners who can adapt to any type of contract. It is a huge barrier to entry. Even if I could get on them, I would have to spend weeks writing the bid when I don’t have a dedicated bid team, there is no guarantee of a contract at the end of it, just a right to tender for further contracts, and time is money. You strike me as someone who works for a medium to large firm (guess) who may be able to sneak onto these arrangements and have administrative support, but I do not.
The irony is that the public sector then gets a worse service because arguably more skilled and cheaper people (in some instances) are blocked from tendering. There is at least 1 client of mine where one of the big 4 has a blanket contract for all work, but because they don’t possess my specialist expertise I am able to work alongside them. A rarity.
I now have to go and write a report for a country’s government not in the EU, then next week I fly out to do work for another government, also not in the EU. See the pattern?
I guess the question is, if we leave the EU will this change? If we sign a trade agreement with the US for instance do you not think McKinsey et al will be pushing for regulations that will benefit them, not the little man? Has the UK government really done much to make you think that post-Brexit these restrictions will drop away. Does more services being signed over to the likes of Capita give you confidence that the Tory party aren't the party of big business?
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
So because nationalised companies performed badly 40 years ago they will always perform badly? Whoever is in charge the British government are incapable of running a business. If you have so little confidence in the government compared to what countries such as France and Germany can do I do wonder why you voted for Brexit.dsr wrote:British Rail
British Leyland
British Telecom
Royal Mail (still in a bit of a mess now, but that's largely because of the EU/UK government rules to try and create competition where it shouldn't be. Royal Mail is one area, privatised or otherwise, where artificial competition ought to be either removed or made fair.)
Do you remember how appalling these companies used to be? To get a new phone, for example - you had to go on a waiting list. 6 months was not unusual. British Rail, regardless of what people may think about the railways now, was worse then. British Leyland is still a national joke, 40 years on.
It may be that Corbyn's government would be more competent, more financially savvy, and less in thrall to the unions that Wilson's government was. But I won't hold my breath.
You could look at a more contemporaneous example such as TFL who have generally been successful, albeit with the current issues around crossrail.
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
Are you saying that because TFL is successful, then all nationalised companies will be successful? No, of course not. And nor am I saying that because they performed badly 40 years ago, they will always perform badly.aggi wrote:So because nationalised companies performed badly 40 years ago they will always perform badly? Whoever is in charge the British government are incapable of running a business. If you have so little confidence in the government compared to what countries such as France and Germany can do I do wonder why you voted for Brexit.
You could look at a more contemporaneous example such as TFL who have generally been successful, albeit with the current issues around crossrail.
-
- Posts: 19799
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
- Been Liked: 5483 times
- Has Liked: 2540 times
- Location: Burnley, Lancs
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
dsr wrote:Are you saying that because TFL is successful, then all nationalised companies will be successful? No, of course not. And nor am I saying that because they performed badly 40 years ago, they will always perform badly.
And yet every time the discussion of nationalisation of anything comes up, i always seem to see you bringing up British Rail. Why is that?
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
Because you have a vivid imagination but a poor memory.Imploding Turtle wrote:And yet every time the discussion of nationalisation of anything comes up, i always seem to see you bringing up British Rail. Why is that?
-
- Posts: 19799
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
- Been Liked: 5483 times
- Has Liked: 2540 times
- Location: Burnley, Lancs
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
OK, but...dsr wrote:Because you have a vivid imagination but a poor memory.
dsr wrote:I wonder if the nationalised railway would be as good as British Rail used to be?
dsr wrote:British Rail
British Leyland
British Telecom
Royal Mail (still in a bit of a mess now, but that's largely because of the EU/UK government rules to try and create competition where it shouldn't be. Royal Mail is one area, privatised or otherwise, where artificial competition ought to be either removed or made fair.)
Do you remember how appalling these companies used to be? To get a new phone, for example - you had to go on a waiting list. 6 months was not unusual. British Rail, regardless of what people may think about the railways now, was worse then. British Leyland is still a national joke, 40 years on.
It may be that Corbyn's government would be more competent, more financially savvy, and less in thrall to the unions that Wilson's government was. But I won't hold my breath.
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
Instead of posting bilge, either admit you were wrong or else say nothing. Yes, I agree that on a thread about nationalising the railways, I mentioned British Rail. But only a fool would think that shows obsession with British Rail - to the more rational among us, it's pretty obvious that British Rail is very relevant to a thread about nationalising railways.
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
I'm not really sure what your point is then. Didn't you start off by saying that the nationalisation plan wouldn't work as private sector firms would be more efficient and the government would keep having to buy them up to compete (as the public sector companies would be bloated and overpriced).dsr wrote:Are you saying that because TFL is successful, then all nationalised companies will be successful? No, of course not. And nor am I saying that because they performed badly 40 years ago, they will always perform badly.
If you're saying that nationalised companies won't always perform badly then why are you so convinced it is a bad plan?
-
- Posts: 19799
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
- Been Liked: 5483 times
- Has Liked: 2540 times
- Location: Burnley, Lancs
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
dsr wrote:Instead of posting bilge, either admit you were wrong or else say nothing. Yes, I agree that on a thread about nationalising the railways, I mentioned British Rail. But only a fool would think that shows obsession with British Rail - to the more rational among us, it's pretty obvious that British Rail is very relevant to a thread about nationalising railways.
I never said you were obsessed with British Rail? Why are you so dishonest that you have to mischaracterise what i said mere posts ago in order to criticise it?
Edit: Also, didn't you once say "Experience of how it's been done before." in response to my criticism of those who reject nationalised railways in Britain despite other countries having very successfully nationalised railway systems? Why yes. Yes you did. so let's summarise your bullshit quickly.
You said.
Which is contrary to your previous arguments, here http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... ed#p989012" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;dsr wrote:Are you saying that because TFL is successful, then all nationalised companies will be successful? No, of course not. And nor am I saying that because they performed badly 40 years ago, they will always perform badly.
here, http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... ed#p982904" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;dsr wrote:British Rail
British Leyland
British Telecom
Royal Mail (still in a bit of a mess now, but that's largely because of the EU/UK government rules to try and create competition where it shouldn't be. Royal Mail is one area, privatised or otherwise, where artificial competition ought to be either removed or made fair.)
Do you remember how appalling these companies used to be? To get a new phone, for example - you had to go on a waiting list. 6 months was not unusual. British Rail, regardless of what people may think about the railways now, was worse then. British Leyland is still a national joke, 40 years on.
It may be that Corbyn's government would be more competent, more financially savvy, and less in thrall to the unions that Wilson's government was. But I won't hold my breath.
And this is my favourite one, here http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... ed#p982888" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;dsr wrote:Experience of how it's been done before.
Why is that one my favourite? Because it is a pure, ideologically instinctive reply. This instinctual, negative opinion was the first reply to a thread asking about the end of privatised railways. The opening post of the thread contained a link to a BBC article about that very question which I know you didn't read because your reply came one minute after the thread was posted. Like a reflex. And it perfectly demonstrates just how full of **** you are when you come out with crap like "And nor am I saying that because they performed badly 40 years ago, they will always perform badly."dsr wrote:I wonder if the nationalised railway would be as good as British Rail used to be?
Pointing to 40 years ago is your instinctive defence mechanism.
Now. This is the part where you claim the holier-than-thou approach and deflect from my argument because i used a curse word.
-
- Posts: 25697
- Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
- Been Liked: 4644 times
- Has Liked: 9849 times
- Location: Glasgow
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
Wow! didn't see this coming https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48034732
Meanwhile Change UK lurch from crisis to crisis https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 82876.html
Do they not vet their candidates,this is the sort of language i'd expect from a UKIP candidate not someone who is supposedly a centrist.
They all like keeping it in the family,Rees-Moog's sister standing for the Brexit Party,now Bojo's sister standing for Change UK.
So much for a new kind of politics,different parties same old faces.
Meanwhile Change UK lurch from crisis to crisis https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 82876.html
Do they not vet their candidates,this is the sort of language i'd expect from a UKIP candidate not someone who is supposedly a centrist.
They all like keeping it in the family,Rees-Moog's sister standing for the Brexit Party,now Bojo's sister standing for Change UK.
So much for a new kind of politics,different parties same old faces.
-
- Posts: 19799
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
- Been Liked: 5483 times
- Has Liked: 2540 times
- Location: Burnley, Lancs
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
tiger76 wrote:Wow! didn't see this coming https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48034732
Meanwhile Change UK lurch from crisis to crisis https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 82876.html
Do they not vet their candidates,this is the sort of language i'd expect from a UKIP candidate not someone who is supposedly a centrist.
They all like keeping it in the family,Rees-Moog's sister standing for the Brexit Party,now Bojo's sister standing for Change UK.
So much for a new kind of politics,different parties same old faces.
The Brexit party's attracting all the crazies. Even George Galloway's endorsing them.
-
- Posts: 8069
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
- Been Liked: 3060 times
- Has Liked: 5023 times
- Location: Catterick N.Yorks
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
The Tories are suffering because they've ignored THEIR voters, why would they go put campaigning for them. Like me with Labour, they will probably vote for a.n.other, until the party start reflecting its members. Before anyone tells me Jeremy has increased this, and increased that, Labour constituencies overwhelmingly voted Leave. He himself has argued against the EU for 30 years. I dont need to go into my opinion of Momentum again, it's been stated many times.tiger76 wrote:Local elections should be fought on local issues,i know this doesn't always happen,Andrew Adonis is a terrible candidate selection,Farage et al will use his previous quotes to win over wavering leave voters,even more bizarrely he's standing in the South West region,hardly a hotbed of remain,now if he'd made the London list,i could see the logic.
He is also a peer,so this just looks like another politician leaping on the EU gravy train,i bet Nigel can't believe his luck,Labour and the Tories keep scoring own-goals.
Is it any wonder grass-roots Conservative activists are cheesed off,and many are not campaigning in the proposed EU elections.
https://www.conservativehome.com/platfo ... place.html
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -elections
Judging by rumours this is common in most local Conservative associations,many members are openly stating they will vote for the Brexit party.
-
- Posts: 10318
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:45 pm
- Been Liked: 2636 times
- Has Liked: 2798 times
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
Change UK- The party that campaigning for the status quo!tiger76 wrote:Wow! didn't see this coming https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48034732
Meanwhile Change UK lurch from crisis to crisis https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 82876.html
Do they not vet their candidates,this is the sort of language i'd expect from a UKIP candidate not someone who is supposedly a centrist.
They all like keeping it in the family,Rees-Moog's sister standing for the Brexit Party,now Bojo's sister standing for Change UK.
So much for a new kind of politics,different parties same old faces.
You couldn't make it it up. You really couldn't!
Embarrassing yet comedy gold to boot.!
-
- Posts: 10318
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:45 pm
- Been Liked: 2636 times
- Has Liked: 2798 times
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
Yes it's attracting millions of "crazies"Imploding Turtle wrote:The Brexit party's attracting all the crazies. Even George Galloway's endorsing them.
And they all have a vote!
Great news in't it!
-
- Posts: 19799
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
- Been Liked: 5483 times
- Has Liked: 2540 times
- Location: Burnley, Lancs
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
While the number of Labour constituencies voting to Leave does outweigh the number of Labour constituencies that voted to Remain, Labour's actual voters overwhelmingly voted to Remain.Colburn_Claret wrote:The Tories are suffering because they've ignored THEIR voters, why would they go put campaigning for them. Like me with Labour, they will probably vote for a.n.other, until the party start reflecting its members. Before anyone tells me Jeremy has increased this, and increased that, Labour constituencies overwhelmingly voted Leave. He himself has argued against the EU for 30 years. I dont need to go into my opinion of Momentum again, it's been stated many times.
-
- Posts: 19799
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
- Been Liked: 5483 times
- Has Liked: 2540 times
- Location: Burnley, Lancs
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
Actually, yes. It's about time the Tory vote was split.RingoMcCartney wrote:Yes it's attracting millions of "crazies"
And they all have a vote!
Great news in't it!
-
- Posts: 10318
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:45 pm
- Been Liked: 2636 times
- Has Liked: 2798 times
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
"Split"? More like annihilated.Imploding Turtle wrote:Actually, yes. It's about time the Tory vote was split.
Talking of "splitting" the vote.
Remain.
Lib antidemocrats/ Greens / CUK / !
-
- Posts: 813
- Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 6:39 pm
- Been Liked: 180 times
- Has Liked: 97 times
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
Imploding Turtle wrote:While the number of Labour constituencies voting to Leave does outweigh the number of Labour constituencies that voted to Remain, Labour's actual voters overwhelmingly voted to Remain.
Bit like Hilary won the popular vote but Big Donald was the 8 year winner...
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
This Labour constituencies voting leave thing keeps being trotted out, but it misrepresents the fact that 65% of Labour voters actually voted remain.Colburn_Claret wrote:The Tories are suffering because they've ignored THEIR voters, why would they go put campaigning for them. Like me with Labour, they will probably vote for a.n.other, until the party start reflecting its members. Before anyone tells me Jeremy has increased this, and increased that, Labour constituencies overwhelmingly voted Leave. He himself has argued against the EU for 30 years. I dont need to go into my opinion of Momentum again, it's been stated many times.
Edit - IT beat me to it.
-
- Posts: 8069
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
- Been Liked: 3060 times
- Has Liked: 5023 times
- Location: Catterick N.Yorks
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
Sorry, I wasnt aware so many labour voters lived in London, considering how many constituencies in London are Tory.martin_p wrote:This Labour constituencies voting leave thing keeps being trotted out, but it misrepresents the fact that 65% of Labour voters actually voted remain.
Edit - IT beat me to it.
Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth
The Brexit Party having its first rally. Looks like a pretty diverse bunch:
EDIT: Seems this was the 5th.
EDIT: Seems this was the 5th.
Last edited by aggi on Wed Apr 24, 2019 7:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.