" Red Wall " seats ....

[RingoMcCartney]

Perhaps, a contributing factor to the collapse of the red wall was. The proletariat being aware that every single labour government has, compared when it took office, left it with unemployment higher.

[Clarets4me]

The majority of GP's are classed as self employed, or as directors or partners of firms supplying General Practioner services to the NHS. This stems back to the refusal of Doctors to given up their private earnings when the NHS was being formulated ... They won't want to you remember that the British Medical Association were the biggest obstacle to the setting up of the NHS, far more than the Conservative party who were broadly in agreement .

When Nye Bevan was asked how he got the BMA to eventually agree, his answer was " we stuffed their mouths with Gold ! " ....

[AndrewJB]

I believe nationalisation in the context of how labour's vision portrays this is the worst idea ever... sorry you don't agree with it.

I don't think we really have a truly nationalised entity any more here in this country in the way that they operate which is probably a testament that the learns of full state ownership is not sustainable.

The NHS has private companies supplying services and existence of PFIs etc as an example have meant that private and public are truly interwoven within this gem of ours.

I believe nationalisation is accepted that its not something that works for inifinte period. Bloating, underperformance, lack of accountability etc all mean that eventually there is a point where you end up with underinvestment, inefficient, outdated, non-functioning industries. I have explained why this happens - tax payers having to cover this rather than shareholders or private individuals etc.

The area i would probably agree where nationalisation does work - where it is short term and an industry themselves are in trouble - like the banks for example (which wasn't labours fault). That needed government support to weather the storm and that was an example of that hybrid model existing.

In the context of nationalising broadband, offering it free and decimating the competition - Im still shaking my head at that now in terms of how anyone thought that was a good idea is beyond me.



I can't even begin to unpick this fully as the UK/US/Bolivia are constitutionally run differently. State laws/federal laws etc. The history of those countries etc all have influence on how things have happened/built etc.



I think what you have suggested about the roads will come in from the government.

Taxes raised from VED and fuel duty are on the decline and with he move to banning of ICE cars and the drive towards EV's then this is only going to accelerate. I would favour a PPM way of paying for the use of roads and generating tax.

Currently I pay no road tax and I pay no fuel duty to drive my car so I am enjoying the benefits of this with more cost effective motoring. I expect that if a PPM charge came into driving, it would be a fair methodology of paying for things and seems to be one theory that people are consistent in believing that this is one of the few options the government have.

I appreciate you are a believer of big government and that that your socialist values can only be delivered through nationalisation and having more control on the supply and cost of things to ensure more people get access to things. If it was that simple, I would probably share similar views but it's not that simple unfortunately.

I think a problem with most conservative economic thinking is it has been co-opted to serve the interests of the rich, as though Adam Smith would look at the world today and approve. Smith was a radical for his time, and I think he’d be appalled at things done in his name.

So to your post: you’ve said a lot about what you think, but not really backed up why you think it - as though you’ve read a couple of books and believed them uncritically. You’ve said that all state owned entities get more and more bloated and inefficient over time - as though it’s a law of nature, and inevitable. That’s clearly not the case when you consider actual cases of state enterprises. The BBC, the NHS, Royal Mail while it was still publicly owned are all examples of well run and efficient state enterprises in comparison with commercial entities of a similar size. The NHS costs about half as much per head of population than the US healthcare industry (which is bloated and hopelessly inefficient), and achieves better outcomes. The salaries paid by the BBC are dwarfed by the salaries paid in the Murdoch media, and despite having a constrained revenue in comparison, the quality of output is greater. All three state entities have been around for a long time. Your assertions just don’t hold up to scrutiny.

In fact when we look at some UK privatisations the reverse is true. The rail companies take a great deal more in public subsidy than BR did. Even those companies themselves are owned by the state run railways of Germany, France, and Holland - making a joke of the idea that governments shouldn’t run railways. They run ours, and the profits they make here subsidise rail travel in their own countries. The same with utilities. Bills were supposed to come down, but those companies have been identified as rip off artists by Labour and Conservative governments.

With the internet, the current model has failed to make fibre broadband available as widely as other EU (and many other outside) countries. And it’s expensive. This, like railways and utilities just raises the costs of real business in the country, making us less competitive. It’s capitalism for capitalism’s sake.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Have you just sat there and said that the NHS, BBC and previously the Royal Mail are all well run efficient state services?

If you weren't laughing whilst writing that then you should've been..

[AndrewJB]

Have you just sat there and said that the NHS, BBC and previously the Royal Mail are all well run efficient state services?

If you weren't laughing whilst writing that then you should've been..

I compared the NHS to the private US system, and the BBC to Murdoch’s media empire. You’re welcome to show me I’m mistaken, or maybe the preset assumptions you have about things is itself mistaken?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I compared the NHS to the private US system, and the BBC to Murdoch’s media empire. You’re welcome to show me I’m mistaken, or maybe the preset assumptions you have about things is itself mistaken?

The topic was state owned things being bloated, inefficient etc.
That's exactly what the NHS, BBC and previously Royal mail were.

All laden with overpaid Chief Execs, senior managers etc.

You can compare them to whatever you like if it makes you feel better, but it doesn't escape the truth.

[clarethomer]

So to your post: you’ve said a lot about what you think, but not really backed up why you think it - as though you’ve read a couple of books and believed them uncritically. You’ve said that all state owned entities get more and more bloated and inefficient over time - as though it’s a law of nature, and inevitable. That’s clearly not the case when you consider actual cases of state enterprises. The BBC, the NHS, Royal Mail while it was still publicly owned are all examples of well run and efficient state enterprises in comparison with commercial entities of a similar size. The NHS costs about half as much per head of population than the US healthcare industry (which is bloated and hopelessly inefficient), and achieves better outcomes. The salaries paid by the BBC are dwarfed by the salaries paid in the Murdoch media, and despite having a constrained revenue in comparison, the quality of output is greater. All three state entities have been around for a long time. Your assertions just don’t hold up to scrutiny.

In fact when we look at some UK privatisations the reverse is true. The rail companies take a great deal more in public subsidy than BR did. Even those companies themselves are owned by the state run railways of Germany, France, and Holland - making a joke of the idea that governments shouldn’t run railways. They run ours, and the profits they make here subsidise rail travel in their own countries. The same with utilities. Bills were supposed to come down, but those companies have been identified as rip off artists by Labour and Conservative governments.

The NHS is a good example of why I dislike and do not subscribe to nationalisation.

The social purpose it has is unquestionable and as you say the envy of other countries.

However look beyond the service it delivers and all I see is an ineffective and inefficient business that is showing all the signs of what happens to a nationalised industry.

It suffers from the the principal-agent problem. This means that civil servants/politicians who take custodian responsibility for the NHS and are in effect the people that represent the NHS shareholders (tax payers) are not qualified to tell the NHS Managers that they could do the job better. What happens is they then employ other experts to review what the experts do. This leads to bloated inefficient management structures.

The NHS suffers from lack of funding from government (both sides of the house). Why does this happen - well its economic reality that when the NHS is running at a deficit (48% of trusts were in deficit in 2018-19) then they require the tax payer to bail them out. Governments don't have blank cheques and there is always a conflict in how far they support it and how much money they can give. The government therefore challenge how it spends money and the funding from government dries up a little and BANG - waiting times go up, operations are cancelled, services get withdrawn making the postcode lottery a real thing for people with certain health issues.

The problems described above are symptoms of nationalisation rather than the colour of government in place. It's economic reality that nationalisation creates these problems.

Do I want to change the NHS into a private firm - Absolutely not. However, I do believe that with the existence of PFIs and private companies now in operation which have been by both governments also is a realisation that something needed to be done differently because unlike other industries which were previously privatised and then returned to public ownership - there is NO Government who would do this to the NHS. It's too enshrined in the fabric of our society/culture/beliefs and values.

With the internet, the current model has failed to make fibre broadband available as widely as other EU (and many other outside) countries. And it’s expensive. This, like railways and utilities just raises the costs of real business in the country, making us less competitive. It’s capitalism for capitalism’s sake.

Sorry - Im still not comprehending the argument for nationalisation here.

£10 a month I pay for superfast broadband (which means 30+mbps) with unlimited downloads.

Offcom state that 95% of the country have access to this level of internet.

I don't see a compelling argument about us falling behind and this being capitalism for capitalism sake. Sounds quite the opposite of nationalisation for nationalisation sake.

If companies need access to gigabit broadband - they are likely to situate their business premises where this can be made available.

If individuals need this for work - i know my VPN for work restricts the speed of connection to its network so I don't even get to use the full benefit of the speed I get.

What was being proposed was a sledgehammer solution for a tiny nut of a problem. Not disputing it would be good to have even better broadband in this country but its not an industry that needs nationalisation imo and given what we have seen with the NHS - when the next change in technology comes along, there is absolutely no evidence that a nationalised firm will keep pace with that change any differently to the private one in this instance. In fact as the money dries up further as the government don't want to be seen as asking the tax payer for more money, they will start to get experts in the see what else can be done... and back to the principal-agent problem as the government doesn't have the expertise to drive the changes required.

[AndrewJB]

The topic was state owned things being bloated, inefficient etc.
That's exactly what the NHS, BBC and previously Royal mail were.

All laden with overpaid Chief Execs, senior managers etc.

You can compare them to whatever you like if it makes you feel better, but it doesn't escape the truth.

They are bloated and inefficient, because you say they are? There must be a measure by which you’ve reached this conclusion. Every organisation whether public or private could be said to be overladen with “overpaid execs.”

For me, and I accept you might judge it differently (but until you lay out how you judge it we won’t know), I’d compare the organisations to other similar organisations. I chose the US health are system because it’s mostly private, but if we compare to the German or French systems, we discover they spend a lot more per head of population than we do (30%?), so even compared to other socialised systems ours is more efficient.

The BBC offers a hugely wide ranging product portfolio, and earns significant revenues through selling on to overseas markets. Their pay is published online, where you can look at and wonder whether a person is part of an overladen management structure If you like, but commercial television pays higher salaries.

As for the Royal Mail, it was still turning a profit when the government pretty much gave it away to their hedge fund friends, and I wouldn’t have said the service was that bad. Considering it existed for nearly 500 years as a state run enterprise, according to Homerclaret’s predictions of how these things go, in that time frame it should have been consuming huge public subsidies for the last 490 years.

So going back to the original point, state run enterprises aren’t destined to become a huge drag on the economy as he claimed. And the drag of privatised services on our economy - as I’ve illustrated - remains in-rebutted.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

It's widely acknowledged that the NHS is bloated, top heavy with pen pushers etc.
Same with the BBC.

It isn't on my say so, it's fact.

So you're arguing against spending more per head like other countries do?
How odd.

[clarethomer]

It's widely acknowledged that the NHS is bloated, top heavy with pen pushers etc.
Same with the BBC.

It isn't on my say so, it's fact.

So you're arguing against spending more per head like other countries do?
How odd.

Not odd at all - to admit that nationalisation is ineffective and inefficient is asking him to admit socialism doesn't work. Not going to happen.

https://www.wbs.ac.uk/news/management-c ... -services/

Example of what happens with the principal - agent problem. The shareholder doesnt know whether the organisation is being run effectively. Wasteful spending on trying to get someone in to tell them what the problem is.. and failing.

[taio]

It's widely acknowledged that the NHS is bloated, top heavy with pen pushers etc.
Same with the BBC.

It isn't on my say so, it's fact.

So you're arguing against spending more per head like other countries do?
How odd.

Extracts from a recent research study:

The results showed that, across all trusts, having a higher proportion of managers had a statistically significant impact on performance. Even a small increase in managers, from 2% to 3% of the workforce, led to a marginal improvement of 1% in patient satisfaction scores, a 5% improvement in hospital efficiency and a 15% reduction in infection rates.

Currently, there are only 31,000 managers in the NHS. About a third are doctors or nurses who work part-time in leadership roles, while the rest are general (non-clinical) managers. This may seem like a lot, but in an organisation of 1.36m employees, it is less than 3% of the workforce. It also contrasts with the UK economy where managers make up 9.5% of the workforce.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

The NHS annually spends anywhere from £250-500 million per year on Management consultants.

"NHS bodies notoriously spend vast sums each year on management consultants to do their planning for them – which suggests they have too few good finance people and executives in-house.

Perhaps the reason people feel the NHS has too many bureaucrats is that they feel the NHS has too much bureaucracy: too much emphasis on targets, micro-management and big political initiatives. They may have a point."

Lifted from a Guardian article a few years ago.

The financial figures are direct from the NHS.

[AndrewJB]

It's widely acknowledged that the NHS is bloated, top heavy with pen pushers etc.
Same with the BBC.

It isn't on my say so, it's fact.

So you're arguing against spending more per head like other countries do?
How odd.

“It’s a fact.” - without any evidence whatsoever, other than; “it’s widely acknowledged.” By whom?

All organisations need pen pushers (support staff make organisations more efficient). With decades of cost saving drives under their belts - more arguably than any similar commercial company of the same size - the NHS and BBC (and probably Royal Mail too), are likely to carry little excess weight, apart from PFI contracts forced on them by governments.

The larger the organisation, the more the waste; but I can’t see how the NHS or BBC are particularly wasteful in the context of this. In fact I see them as quite frugal compared to other organisations.

Show me the evidence.

[taio]

The NHS annually spends anywhere from £250-500 million per year on Management consultants.

"NHS bodies notoriously spend vast sums each year on management consultants to do their planning for them – which suggests they have too few good finance people and executives in-house.

Perhaps the reason people feel the NHS has too many bureaucrats is that they feel the NHS has too much bureaucracy: too much emphasis on targets, micro-management and big political initiatives. They may have a point."

Lifted from a Guardian article a few years ago.

The financial figures are direct from the NHS.

'The King’s Fund estimates that, during 2010-17, the number of NHS managers fell by 18%.'

'The organisational disruption and loss of management experience was also associated with big spending on external consultancy.'

[AndrewJB]

The NHS is a good example of why I dislike and do not subscribe to nationalisation.

The social purpose it has is unquestionable and as you say the envy of other countries.

However look beyond the service it delivers and all I see is an ineffective and inefficient business that is showing all the signs of what happens to a nationalised industry.

It suffers from the the principal-agent problem. This means that civil servants/politicians who take custodian responsibility for the NHS and are in effect the people that represent the NHS shareholders (tax payers) are not qualified to tell the NHS Managers that they could do the job better. What happens is they then employ other experts to review what the experts do. This leads to bloated inefficient management structures.

The NHS suffers from lack of funding from government (both sides of the house). Why does this happen - well its economic reality that when the NHS is running at a deficit (48% of trusts were in deficit in 2018-19) then they require the tax payer to bail them out. Governments don't have blank cheques and there is always a conflict in how far they support it and how much money they can give. The government therefore challenge how it spends money and the funding from government dries up a little and BANG - waiting times go up, operations are cancelled, services get withdrawn making the postcode lottery a real thing for people with certain health issues.

The problems described above are symptoms of nationalisation rather than the colour of government in place. It's economic reality that nationalisation creates these problems.

Do I want to change the NHS into a private firm - Absolutely not. However, I do believe that with the existence of PFIs and private companies now in operation which have been by both governments also is a realisation that something needed to be done differently because unlike other industries which were previously privatised and then returned to public ownership - there is NO Government who would do this to the NHS. It's too enshrined in the fabric of our society/culture/beliefs and values.



Sorry - Im still not comprehending the argument for nationalisation here.

£10 a month I pay for superfast broadband (which means 30+mbps) with unlimited downloads.

Offcom state that 95% of the country have access to this level of internet.

I don't see a compelling argument about us falling behind and this being capitalism for capitalism sake. Sounds quite the opposite of nationalisation for nationalisation sake.

If companies need access to gigabit broadband - they are likely to situate their business premises where this can be made available.

If individuals need this for work - i know my VPN for work restricts the speed of connection to its network so I don't even get to use the full benefit of the speed I get.

What was being proposed was a sledgehammer solution for a tiny nut of a problem. Not disputing it would be good to have even better broadband in this country but its not an industry that needs nationalisation imo and given what we have seen with the NHS - when the next change in technology comes along, there is absolutely no evidence that a nationalised firm will keep pace with that change any differently to the private one in this instance. In fact as the money dries up further as the government don't want to be seen as asking the tax payer for more money, they will start to get experts in the see what else can be done... and back to the principal-agent problem as the government doesn't have the expertise to drive the changes required.

I’m guessing you didn’t understand the part of the Labour manifesto we’re talking about, because their promise involved full fibre to the premises - which the U.K. currently only has 8% coverage (less than I thought). This enables speeds of up to 1000mb. South Korea has 87% coverage, to put in perspective how far we’re lagging behind. By your logic, there is no evidence in the U.K. that a privatised internet infrastructure will keep pace with changes in technology (and roll it out across the whole country).

You argue from the standpoint that state run organisations are always prey to political interference, and because there are no shareholders unaccountable, and because there is no profit motive rudderless; but all of these obstacles can be overcome. An organisation can be put at arms length from politics. The head of the service could be elected rather than appointed by the government. It can be assigned a purpose, and it can be audited - not just for financial probity, but to ensure it is fulfilling its purpose. As soon as you sell off a public service, its purpose becomes making money, and that can easily get detached from the purpose the people want of it - to provide fast internet for example.

The whole reason we’ve had the debacle around procuring PPE, and running test track and trace is because the government has gone to the private sector rather than using in-house resources, and you can’t get more ideological than that.

[mdd2]

"The whole reason we’ve had the debacle around procuring PPE, and running test track and trace is because the government has gone to the private sector rather than using in- resources, and you can’t get more ideological than that."

There wasn't the in capacity to deal with this extra equipment and to state simple fact the only bits the Government owns are the hospitals and labs. and most of the staff. All the primers for doing testing, the reagents, lab machinery, CT and MR scanning equipment, the PPE, the oxygen,the ventilators, the drugs, the beds and bedding etc are bought or hired from the private sector and a lot has to be imported all at a time when the World was poorly prepared for all of this. The debacle around testing initially was because it was being done in and of course it needs to be understood to suddenly have need to start testing all patients attending and contacts of ill patients plus staff for a new disease and for that testing to be done at the outset within the NHS labs detracted from other essential lab work. It is not possible to suddenly open up labs for additional testing not least because there is a need to ensure any new facility can be accredited as being capable of producing reliable results through a system of quality assurance.In other words that the new lab produces as accurate a result as the established facilities.

I am getting the impression all hell is setting loose on the front as kids start back passing around many viruses other than Covid. My youngest has been kept off with and tested negative, two children of a work colleague have been sent home and tested negative and another is awaiting a test result.

Andrew, if you are arguing that we should not have slashed local public health budgets then I agree-a lot of the local facility that could have been added to relatively quickly had been victim of the 2010-15 reductions in public expenditure

[nil_desperandum]

The NHS annually spends anywhere from £250-500 million per year on Management consultants.

Out of interest, do you know what percentage of the total NHS budget this is?

[clarethomer]

I’m guessing you didn’t understand the part of the Labour manifesto we’re talking about, because their promise involved full fibre to the premises - which the U.K. currently only has 8% coverage (less than I thought). This enables speeds of up to 1000mb. South Korea has 87% coverage, to put in perspective how far we’re lagging behind. By your logic, there is no evidence in the U.K. that a privatised internet infrastructure will keep pace with changes in technology (and roll it out across the whole country).

You argue from the standpoint that state run organisations are always prey to political interference, and because there are no shareholders unaccountable, and because there is no profit motive rudderless; but all of these obstacles can be overcome. An organisation can be put at arms length from politics. The head of the service could be elected rather than appointed by the government. It can be assigned a purpose, and it can be audited - not just for financial probity, but to ensure it is fulfilling its purpose. As soon as you sell off a public service, its purpose becomes making money, and that can easily get detached from the purpose the people want of it - to provide fast internet for example.

The whole reason we’ve had the debacle around procuring PPE, and running test track and trace is because the government has gone to the private sector rather than using in-house resources, and you can’t get more ideological than that.

Not sure you have even read my response because the guff you have written above doesn't reflect anything I have said at all.

Sounds like a canned response to anyone who challenges socialism. I have explained that I know we are behind on full fibre broadband but my point was we don't need to be there and the benefit of this is likely to be minimal. Sledgehammer response to crack a nut. I also explained that I recognise that private firms are behind but so would public infrastructure when this technology moves on because of the way state owned operations are funded/run and work.

No point even talking about it with you as your head is so far in the sands of socialism, there is not talking to you about these things.

Here, why dont you just stare at this picture for a while to give you some warm feeling inside.

download.jpeg (5.11 KiB) Viewed 1935 times

[AndrewJB]

Not sure you have even read my response because the guff you have written above doesn't reflect anything I have said at all.

Sounds like a canned response to anyone who challenges socialism. I have explained that I know we are behind on full fibre broadband but my point was we don't need to be there and the benefit of this is likely to be minimal. Sledgehammer response to crack a nut. I also explained that I recognise that private firms are behind but so would public infrastructure when this technology moves on because of the way state owned operations are funded/run and work.

No point even talking about it with you as your head is so far in the sands of socialism, there is not talking to you about these things.

Here, why dont you just stare at this picture for a while to give you some warm feeling inside.

download.jpeg

It’s not a canned response at all, and why do you keep mentioning socialism, when I haven’t?

A faster internet will create more business opportunities, and empower people. Issues arising from our system are with us now. About a third of students at the school where I’m a governor had to pick up physical packs of homework because they either had no internet at home, or insufficient bandwidth. Fixing that would be an investment.

You’re telling me how state run enterprises work, but failing to back it up with examples - which if you’re right there should be plenty. I’ve provided examples that don’t conform to your theory. And they’ve come from the real world rather than a little red book.

[clarethomer]

It’s not a canned response at all, and why do you keep mentioning socialism, when I haven’t?

A faster internet will create more business opportunities, and empower people. Issues arising from our system are with us now. About a third of students at the school where I’m a governor had to pick up physical packs of homework because they either had no internet at home, or insufficient bandwidth. Fixing that would be an investment.

You’re telling me how state run enterprises work, but failing to back it up with examples - which if you’re right there should be plenty. I’ve provided examples that don’t conform to your theory. And they’ve come from the real world rather than a little red book.

You are a socialist, your support of Corbyn was naucious at times on here. Are your views not socialist?

I have given you an example of a state run enterprise and how its failures are there for all to see. Yet you seem to ignore it. Im not going to go through every example from every country to debate individual examples that you throw out there because the points to why nationalisation remain the same.

Agent Principal problem being one of the main reasons.

You claim fibre is expensive - I gave you examples that it isn't where you can get 30+mbs for £10.

You can get full fibre of 100+mbs for £25 a month - which again isn't expensive.

Businesses can access the broadband you are talking about - it doesn't need 87% coverage.

You tell me the benefits of fibre which I agree with - that a faster internet connection would be beneficial to business but that alone doesn't provide a strong case to destroy an industry, for short term catch up.

You fail to tell us why taking over an industry in this way is better rather than committing say a sum of money and help with planning to allow private companies to move the infrastructure isn't a better option if you think the government should be pushing this agenda?

The manifesto was widely touted as free broadband for everyone...

You are quick to jump on the unseen benefits yet when I talk about the future problems nationalisation will bring, you seem to ignore that.

Take this back to the point of this thread which has gone off at a tangent and I don't want to spend pages of having to repeat the same points over and over again. There is nothing you can say to me that will change my mind on nationalisation/socialism etc. Just as I expect I wont be able to change your views either.

You lost the red wall because of the socialist views of being a middle class party run by millionaires who try to act like they understand the working man.

Labour couldn't articulate their views on Brexit, they failed to see what your working-class traditionalist supporters were concerned about and they had an agenda which took the party too far to the left.

[AndrewJB]

You are a socialist, your support of Corbyn was naucious at times on here. Are your views not socialist?

I have given you an example of a state run enterprise and how its failures are there for all to see. Yet you seem to ignore it. Im not going to go through every example from every country to debate individual examples that you throw out there because the points to why nationalisation remain the same.

Agent Principal problem being one of the main reasons.

You claim fibre is expensive - I gave you examples that it isn't where you can get 30+mbs for £10.

You can get full fibre of 100+mbs for £25 a month - which again isn't expensive.

Businesses can access the broadband you are talking about - it doesn't need 87% coverage.

You tell me the benefits of fibre which I agree with - that a faster internet connection would be beneficial to business but that alone doesn't provide a strong case to destroy an industry, for short term catch up.

You fail to tell us why taking over an industry in this way is better rather than committing say a sum of money and help with planning to allow private companies to move the infrastructure isn't a better option if you think the government should be pushing this agenda?

The manifesto was widely touted as free broadband for everyone...

You are quick to jump on the unseen benefits yet when I talk about the future problems nationalisation will bring, you seem to ignore that.

Take this back to the point of this thread which has gone off at a tangent and I don't want to spend pages of having to repeat the same points over and over again. There is nothing you can say to me that will change my mind on nationalisation/socialism etc. Just as I expect I wont be able to change your views either.

You lost the red wall because of the socialist views of being a middle class party run by millionaires who try to act like they understand the working man.

Labour couldn't articulate their views on Brexit, they failed to see what your working-class traditionalist supporters were concerned about and they had an agenda which took the party too far to the left.

I’m not trying to change your mind. I long ago realised that people who hold to the kind of ideas you espouse do so with a religious fervour. I’m just holding these beliefs up against reality. I’ve given you several examples, from real life, of state run enterprises that are successful and quite efficient for their size, and all you’ve come back with is the Agent Principal theory. The NHS (which I think you were talking about specifically) is considered one of the most efficiently run healthcare services in the world, so your theory doesn’t seem to work when considered against reality in that case. You talk about future problems with national ownership, but those haven’t happened with Royal Mail which was nearly 500 years old when it was given away. Does your theory work with the army? The police? The fire service? No? Then it needn’t work with any state owned operation.

Labour’s internet policy was very ambitious, and I very much doubt it would have gone as easily as planned - as I think of any ambitious policy - however the fundamentals of a country owning its own infrastructure and then having the ability to stretch provision everywhere, is superior to leaving it in the hands of the private sector and having no control. As you say we could give them money to do this, but what would be the return on our investment if they own it? As for the cost - if you have a single provider whose remit is just to keep the system going, and it’s free at point of access, paid for through taxes then of course it’ll be cheaper than what most of us pay now. I pay £30 a month, you only £10, and others perhaps in between. You probably contribute less than this to the NHS budget through taxation.

You’re right there was a perception that Labour were not for the working person, but as with the “Julie Cooper has done nothing for Burnley” there is a gulf between perception and reality. Anyone who can’t understand “negotiate a deal, and put it and remain to the public” is thick.

You claim Labour is no longer for the working person, so pony up some evidence for that. I agree with you it was a perception, but how did they arrive at this? And then vote for a party of millionaires funded by billionaires?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Labour is no longer the party for the average working person, if you want proof may I present the General Election of 2019.

In that GE they lost the red wall, millions of normally staunch Labour voters switched sides because THEY felt that Labour wasn't representative of their views etc.

You probably want opinion polls, or other written forms of proof, but the fact that Labour got their arse handed to them in their worst election defeat for decades is all we need.

People go on about how the Tories have done this, that and the other or how the PM (insert name here) is the worst one ever, or how austerity crippled the country and killed hundreds of thousands (it didn't but that's the claim and it can't be backed up) yet STILL Labour can't win an election.

[dsr]

You’re right there was a perception that Labour were not for the working person, but as with the “Julie Cooper has done nothing for Burnley” there is a gulf between perception and reality. Anyone who can’t understand “negotiate a deal, and put it and remain to the public” is thick.

This is where "I disagree with you so you must be stupid" raises its head - and it is one of many reasons why the Labour party view was not very popular.

Perhaps all these thick people weren't as thick as you think. I mean, it's obvious to both of us that what Corbyn was proposing was to vote on two options. Option one - to leave on terms agreed between two parties who both think that leaving is a bad idea. Option two - to remain on terms entirely dictated by the EU. Maybe the thickoes realised that too, and decided that that was a rotten pair of options and the status quo ("we're leaving") was just better.

[AndrewJB]

This is where "I disagree with you so you must be stupid" raises its head - and it is one of many reasons why the Labour party view was not very popular.

Perhaps all these thick people weren't as thick as you think. I mean, it's obvious to both of us that what Corbyn was proposing was to vote on two options. Option one - to leave on terms agreed between two parties who both think that leaving is a bad idea. Option two - to remain on terms entirely dictated by the EU. Maybe the thickoes realised that too, and decided that that was a rotten pair of options and the status quo ("we're leaving") was just better.

Did you not understand Labour’s position on Brexit?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Did you not understand Labour’s position on Brexit?

They wanted to renegotiate how we would leave, then place it in a referendum to voters with remain being the other option to vote for.

They were also trying to remain neutral, being neither for or against leave despite then having a Euro-sceptic as leader

If leave was to still be the winning option, Labour wanted to keep the UK in the Customs Union and closely aligned to the single market.
Basically they'd do Brexit in name only, because being within the Customs Union would mean we wouldn't be able to negotiate our own trade deals with other countries.

[taio]

Did you not understand Labour’s position on Brexit?

The Labour party itself didn't.

[clarethomer]

I’m not trying to change your mind. I long ago realised that people who hold to the kind of ideas you espouse do so with a religious fervour. I’m just holding these beliefs up against reality.

You mean your reality. Not everyone's reality and in fact that the majority of the country voted against your ideologies probably gives me the confidence that my reality isn't some bizarre one.

I’ve given you several examples, from real life, of state run enterprises that are successful and quite efficient for their size, and all you’ve come back with is the Agent Principal theory. The NHS (which I think you were talking about specifically) is considered one of the most efficiently run healthcare services in the world, so your theory doesn’t seem to work when considered against reality in that case.

I still can't believe you actually believe that the NHS is considered one of the most efficiently run healthcare systems in the world. It wasn't even in the top 10 when Bloomberg did a study on this.

Screenshot 2020-09-13 at 09.36.26.png (131.89 KiB) Viewed 1812 times

In fact the NHS isn't even considered to be in the top 10 of European healthcare according to this study.

Screenshot 2020-09-13 at 09.39.02.png (189.09 KiB) Viewed 1812 times

You talk about future problems with national ownership, but those haven’t happened with Royal Mail which was nearly 500 years old when it was given away. Does your theory work with the army? The police? The fire service? No? Then it needn’t work with any state owned operation.

Royal mail being returned to public ownership and sits on the the FTSE 250 as a public listed company. Good example again of how it could no longer be sustained as public ownership and a government unable to make it work. It was 'given' away (by your beloved Labour) because it wasn't sustainable for the government and taxpayer given numerous attempts to get it to work efficiently and effectively. The Principal - Agent issue in practice again.

Yet once it was privatised and it was made profitable and working better - then the hindsight discussion came in about had it been given away - the fact is that it was like selling a house which needed work - you can't complain afterwards you sold it too cheaply because the people that bought it forced the improvements you weren't prepared to make to get it into a better condition.

Anyone with any common sense can tell that the emergency services and defence are fabric of the national government - like the civil service.

Labour’s internet policy was very ambitious, and I very much doubt it would have gone as easily as planned - as I think of any ambitious policy - however the fundamentals of a country owning its own infrastructure and then having the ability to stretch provision everywhere, is superior to leaving it in the hands of the private sector and having no control. As you say we could give them money to do this, but what would be the return on our investment if they own it?

The return on investment would be more companies paying more tax according to your reasons for wanting this new infrastructure.

As for the cost - if you have a single provider whose remit is just to keep the system going, and it’s free at point of access, paid for through taxes then of course it’ll be cheaper than what most of us pay now. I pay £30 a month, you only £10, and others perhaps in between. You probably contribute less than this to the NHS budget through taxation.

Another assumption - the element of my taxes which pays towards health costs me considerably more than my internet to fund the NHS. I won''t tell you how much as I don't want to be seen in the same way as that poster who bragged about having an expensive watch.

You’re right there was a perception that Labour were not for the working person, but as with the “Julie Cooper has done nothing for Burnley” there is a gulf between perception and reality. Anyone who can’t understand “negotiate a deal, and put it and remain to the public” is thick.

You claim Labour is no longer for the working person, so pony up some evidence for that. I agree with you it was a perception, but how did they arrive at this? And then vote for a party of millionaires funded by billionaires?

I think this has already been answered but I have just stopped laughing at this comment. Thicko constituents who didn't get Emily Thornberry confirming Labour were a remain party at heart and even though they voted to leave, were too thick to see what a great option this was. Something tells me it wasn't them that were the thick ones..

[AndrewJB]

Labour is no longer the party for the average working person, if you want proof may I present the General Election of 2019.

In that GE they lost the red wall, millions of normally staunch Labour voters switched sides because THEY felt that Labour wasn't representative of their views etc.

You probably want opinion polls, or other written forms of proof, but the fact that Labour got their arse handed to them in their worst election defeat for decades is all we need.

People go on about how the Tories have done this, that and the other or how the PM (insert name here) is the worst one ever, or how austerity crippled the country and killed hundreds of thousands (it didn't but that's the claim and it can't be backed up) yet STILL Labour can't win an election.

Thousands switched over, not millions. The question I’m asking is why did they perceive Labour to not be representative of working people, when an examination of their policies says they are, and how did they come to believe the Tory Party looked after their interests, when their track record and policies says they don’t? Bear in mind many of the same voters voted for brexit which is also against their economic interests. I think the decades long press campaign against Europe is not unrelated.

[clarethomer]

Thousands switched over, not millions. The question I’m asking is why did they perceive Labour to not be representative of working people, when an examination of their policies says they are, and how did they come to believe the Tory Party looked after their interests, when their track record and policies says they don’t? Bear in mind many of the same voters voted for brexit which is also against their economic interests. I think the decades long press campaign against Europe is not unrelated.

Anyone else thinking this when it comes to Andrew...?

download (1).jpeg (6.28 KiB) Viewed 1800 times

[Clarets4me]

Did you not understand Labour’s position on Brexit?

Yes, tear up three years work and go back to the negotiations and negotiate another deal. This may, or may not be recommended to the British people, by the Labour party. It would then be put to the people in a 2nd Referendum, with the other choice being " Remain " ....

It smacked of " Remain " by the back door, the British people saw straight through it and Labour got exactly what they deserved for disrespecting the Referendum result of 2016 .. the old EU tactic of trying to get people to vote again until they come up with the right answer

[AndrewJB]

You mean your reality. Not everyone's reality and in fact that the majority of the country voted against your ideologies probably gives me the confidence that my reality isn't some bizarre one.



I still can't believe you actually believe that the NHS is considered one of the most efficiently run healthcare systems in the world. It wasn't even in the top 10 when Bloomberg did a study on this.

Screenshot 2020-09-13 at 09.36.26.png

In fact the NHS isn't even considered to be in the top 10 of European healthcare according to this study.

Screenshot 2020-09-13 at 09.39.02.png



Royal mail being returned to public ownership and sits on the the FTSE 250 as a public listed company. Good example again of how it could no longer be sustained as public ownership and a government unable to make it work. It was 'given' away (by your beloved Labour) because it wasn't sustainable for the government and taxpayer given numerous attempts to get it to work efficiently and effectively. The Principal - Agent issue in practice again.

Yet once it was privatised and it was made profitable and working better - then the hindsight discussion came in about had it been given away - the fact is that it was like selling a house which needed work - you can't complain afterwards you sold it too cheaply because the people that bought it forced the improvements you weren't prepared to make to get it into a better condition.

Anyone with any common sense can tell that the emergency services and defence are fabric of the national government - like the civil service.



The return on investment would be more companies paying more tax according to your reasons for wanting this new infrastructure.



Another assumption - the element of my NI costs me considerably more than my internet to fund the NHS. I won''t tell you how much as I don't want to be seen in the same way as that poster who bragged about having an expensive watch.



I think this has already been answered but I have just stopped laughing at this comment. Thicko constituents who didn't get Emily Thornberry confirming Labour were a remain party at heart and even though they voted to leave, were too thick to see what a great option this was. Something tells me it wasn't them that were the thick ones..

Not sure where you get your facts from, but Royal Mail was sold by Cameron, and was profitable.

I claimed the NHS was efficient - and in any case the other systems you describe are socialised themselves.

You say internet companies will pay more tax after the taxpayer upgrades their network for them? You mean after they charge their customers (taxpayers) more for the improved internet the taxpayer has just paid to improve? What if instead they charge more for the taxpayer improvements and pay out huge dividends to their shareholders, reducing their profits and therefore the tax they owe? Thames Water did this after they were privatised, and I don’t think they’ve ever paid a penny of tax despite all the money they’ve made.

Anyone with common sense in most European countries would tell you that rail, utilities, postal services, and the probation service are fabric of the government like the civil service.

Thanks again for the chance to shoot holes through the myth that privatisation is good.

[AndrewJB]

Anyone else thinking this when it comes to Andrew...?

download (1).jpeg

Translation: “I can’t debate his points so I’ll insult him instead.”

[AndrewJB]

Yes, tear up three years work and go back to the negotiations and negotiate another deal. This may, or may not be recommended to the British people, by the Labour party. It would then be put to the people in a 2nd Referendum, with the other choice being " Remain " ....

It smacked of " Remain " by the back door, the British people saw straight through it and Labour got exactly what they deserved for disrespecting the Referendum result of 2016 .. the old EU tactic of trying to get people to vote again until they come up with the right answer

So you did understand it - which was all I was asking. It wasn’t actually beyond comprehension.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Thousands switched over, not millions. The question I’m asking is why did they perceive Labour to not be representative of working people, when an examination of their policies says they are, and how did they come to believe the Tory Party looked after their interests, when their track record and policies says they don’t? Bear in mind many of the same voters voted for brexit which is also against their economic interests. I think the decades long press campaign against Europe is not unrelated.

Thousands?
The number who voted for Labour from 2017-2019 dropped by about 1.5 million.

Your claim is off by a few.

[dsr]

Did you not understand Labour’s position on Brexit?

Their attempted position was to put themselves in a place where both Brexit supporters and Brexit opponents would look at that policy and say "that works for me". It didn't succeed.

The probem was that a lot of people (and not just Brexit supporters) thought that a deal for leaving, negotiated by two parties who both did not want to leave, wouldn't be any sort of sensible deal. I for one, and I know I was far from alone, thought that Labour's purported second referendum would be a choice between leaving on awful terms or staying on the EU's terms.

[clarethomer]

Not sure where you get your facts from, but Royal Mail was sold by Cameron, and was profitable.

The privatisation of Royal Mail was started by Labour and completed with the coalition government. Here is what Wikipedia has to say on the matter.

After a change of government in 1997, the Labour administration decided to keep the Post Office state-owned but with more commercial freedom. This led to the Postal Services Act 2000, where the Post Office became a public limited company in which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry owned 50,004 ordinary shares plus 1 special share, and the Treasury Solicitor held 1 ordinary share.[37] The company was renamed Consignia plc in 2001[38] and the new name was intended to show that the company did more than deliver mail; however, the change was very unpopular with both the public and employees. The Communication Workers Union (CWU) boycotted the name, and the following year, it was announced that the company would be renamed Royal Mail Group plc.[39]

In 1999 Royal Mail launched a short-lived e-commerce venture, ViaCode Limited, aimed at providing encrypted online communications services.[40] However it failed to make a profit and closed in 2002.[41]

As part of the 2000 Act the government set up a postal regulator, the Postal Services Commission, known as Postcomm, which offered licences to private companies to deliver mail. In 2001, the Consumer Council for Postal Services, known as Postwatch, was created for consumers to express any concerns they may have with the postal service in Britain.[42]

In 2004, the second daily delivery was scrapped in an effort to reduce costs and improve efficiency, meaning a later single delivery would be made.[43] That year, the travelling post office mail trains were also axed.[44] The following year Royal Mail signed a contract with GB Railfreight to operate an overnight rail service between London and Scotland (carrying bulk mail, and without any on-train sorting); this was later followed by a London-Newcastle service.[45]


London's largest sorting office, Mount Pleasant

On 1 January 2006, the Royal Mail lost its 350-year monopoly and the British postal market became fully open to competition.[46] Competitors were allowed to collect and sort mail, and pass it to Royal Mail for delivery, a service known as downstream access. Royal Mail introduced Pricing in Proportion (PiP) for first and second class inland mail, whereby prices are affected by the size as well as weight of items. It also introduced an online postage service, allowing customers to pay for postage online.[47]

In 2007 the Royal Mail Group plc became Royal Mail Group Ltd in a slight change of legal status. Royal Mail ended Sunday collections from pillar boxes that year.[48]

On 1 October 2008, Postwatch was merged into the new consumer watchdog Consumer Focus.[49]

In 2008, due to a continuing fall in mail volumes the government commissioned an independent review of the postal services sector by Richard Hooper CBE, the former deputy chairman of Ofcom. The recommendations in the Hooper Review led Business Secretary Lord Mandelson to seek to part privatise the company by selling a minority stake to a commercial partner. However, despite legislation for the sale passing the House of Lords, it was abandoned in the House of Commons after strong opposition from backbench Labour MPs. The government later cited the difficult economic conditions for the reason behind the retreat.[50]

After the departure of Adam Crozier to ITV plc on 27 May 2010, Royal Mail appointed Canadian Moya Greene as chief executive,[51] the first woman to hold the post.[52]

On 6 December 2010, a number of paid-for services including Admail, post office boxes and private postboxes were removed from the Inland Letter Post Scheme (ILPS) and became available under contract. Several free services including petitions to parliament and the sovereign, and poste restante
were removed from the scheme.[53]

.

I claimed the NHS was efficient - and in any case the other systems you describe are socialised themselves.

No this is what you said...

Screenshot 2020-09-13 at 12.31.46.png (34.86 KiB) Viewed 1745 times

And I evidenced that it wasn't seen that way.

You say internet companies will pay more tax after the taxpayer upgrades their network for them? You mean after they charge their customers (taxpayers) more for the improved internet the taxpayer has just paid to improve?

You asked me what the return would be on the government investing into the infrastructure of our nation's broadband. I simply referred back to why you thought investing money into our infrastructure would bring. If the government pays for the upgrade and doesn't charge its users - where does it get its money from? The tax payer. Anyway, it's clear you are losing the plot with all of this as you start to argue against your own arguments.

Anyone with common sense in most European countries would tell you that rail, utilities, postal services, and the probation service are fabric of the government like the civil service.

Thanks again for the chance to shoot holes through the myth that privatisation is good.

Wipe your tears away Andrew. We have nationalised most of those things in the past. Rather than me try and unpick your ramblings.. here is an article which sums up what happened to a lot of those industries you mentioned when they were nationalised

By the late 1970s it became increasingly apparent that many of the industries nationalised between 1945 and 1951 were running into difficulties. The major problems that the industries faced were:

They were being managed ineffectively and inefficiently. The principal-agent problem is highly relevant to public sector activities given that the managers of the utilities were generally not required to meet any efficiency objectives set by the state. There was growing criticism that, because these industries were protected from competition, they had become increasingly ‘X’ inefficient.
Nationalised industries were also prone to suffer from moral hazard, which occurs whenever individuals or organisations are insured against the negative consequences of their own inefficient behaviour. For example, if a particular nationalised industry made operating losses, the government would simply cover those loses with subsidies. Knowing that the taxpayer would come to the rescue meant that the inefficient behaviour could continue. This is, perhaps, the most significant criticism of the recent ‘bail out’ of failing banks. Given that they know the taxpayer will bail them out this may be an encouragement to continue with their inefficient and highly risky lending activities.
In addition, the nationalised industries had limited scope to raise capital for long term investment and modernisation because they would have to compete with other government spending departments, like education, health and defence. The result was a prolonged period of under-investment in these industries.
By the late 1970s, and throughout the 1980s, most UK’s major State owned industries were sold off to the private sector through privatisation. The intention was that, back in the free market, these industries would become more efficient and would be able to modernise by having greater access to the capital markets, and by employing more modern and dynamic management. Privatisation also generated huge revenues for the UK Treasury as well as allowing tax cuts and creating an environment where other supply-side reforms could be implemented.

[nil_desperandum]

The probem was that a lot of people (and not just Brexit supporters) thought that a deal for leaving, negotiated by two parties who both did not want to leave, wouldn't be any sort of sensible deal. I for one, and I know I was far from alone, thought that Labour's purported second referendum would be a choice between leaving on awful terms or staying on the EU's terms.

The problem is though that the alternative was to vote for Johnson with his "oven ready" deal, which he told people was a "fantastic" deal. This is the same deal that he is trashing and is prepared to break International law to change.
Many of us at the time saw the flaws in the Withdrawal Agreement that Johnson pushed through, and pointed them out, but Johnson denied there was any problem. So really it was a choice of voting for Johnson's "awful" deal or voting for Labour, - whose policy seemed incoherent, and could also have led to an awful deal. The only thing that Labour appeared to rule out though was leaving with "No deal", so at the end of the day that was the crucial difference. If you were happy to go along with the prospect of a "no deal" then you could vote for Johnson and his divisive potentially awful deal, and "get brexit done". People opted for that and will now have to accept the outcome. I think a lot of traditional Tories are somewhat dismayed by recent events.

[clarethomer]

The only thing that Labour appeared to rule out though was leaving with "No deal", so at the end of the day that was the crucial difference.

And labour lost the opportunity to govern because they weren't prepared to do that.

The vote was lost

The people democratically spoke again for the 2nd time that brexit wasn't about testing the waters of the possible but wanting to be more arms length from the EU.

Those that didn't vote for Johnson or leave still don't get the desire of this simple concept. We wanted rid of the EU from our legal systems and decision making.

For all the rational arguments for and against this, the undeniable fact is that there were enough people who desired a change. For the pages and pages of debate/argument/nit-picking on various threads on here- nothing changes this.

Labour lost the vote because of their brexit policy, they lost it because of the direction Corbyn was taking the party and he was unelectable.

Andrew and I can debate our views on nationalisation v privatisation etc or we can argue the points of the 100 other topics that keep coming back up.

Labour's decision to appeal more to the far left of their voter base was at a cost of ignoring those who have traditionally and consistently given them seats.

That was nothing to do with Boris and his oven ready deal as such because he could have promised the earth and paid them all £10k and they would still not have voted for him had Labour's policy been pro-Brexit.

Labour took the role of opposition during the last 3 years leading up to the election too literally, in that they had to oppose everything and anything and put red lines in place etc.

Rather than take the form of opposing everything, had they been more grown up in their approach and shown more unity with the government to accept this wasn't now about red/blue but one to deliver Brexit, we would have been in a very different place now I am sure.

I'm not posting this to re-run the debates we have all had but rather just to make the point that rather than blame what was said/done - Labour's division and approach is what cost them - nothing else.

[dsr]

The problem is though that the alternative was to vote for Johnson with his "oven ready" deal, which he told people was a "fantastic" deal. This is the same deal that he is trashing and is prepared to break International law to change.
Many of us at the time saw the flaws in the Withdrawal Agreement that Johnson pushed through, and pointed them out, but Johnson denied there was any problem. So really it was a choice of voting for Johnson's "awful" deal or voting for Labour, - whose policy seemed incoherent, and could also have led to an awful deal. The only thing that Labour appeared to rule out though was leaving with "No deal", so at the end of the day that was the crucial difference. If you were happy to go along with the prospect of a "no deal" then you could vote for Johnson and his divisive potentially awful deal, and "get brexit done". People opted for that and will now have to accept the outcome. I think a lot of traditional Tories are somewhat dismayed by recent events.

And that#s the problem with Labour's approach. They offered two choices - Remain, or Leave but on terms dictated by the EU. By ruling out "no deal", they were specifically telling the EU that at the end of the negotiating period, they will sign literally anything put before them.

You may argue that the EU would take a fair and reasonable position and would want to be fair to both sides; but few people would. The most ardent Remainers on here have been arguing for years that the EU would act entriely for the benefit of its members and would get the best it could for its members, fairness not coming into it. I don't see anything, now, to argue against that.

Boris did have a fantastic "oven ready" deal that would involve mutual free trade as before. Unfortunately the EU does not want mutual free trade with the UK. Boris and others thought that, ultimately, they would. We were wrong.

[nil_desperandum]

And that#s the problem with Labour's approach. They offered two choices - Remain, or Leave but on terms dictated by the EU. By ruling out "no deal", they were specifically telling the EU that at the end of the negotiating period, they will sign literally anything put before them.

You may argue that the EU would take a fair and reasonable position and would want to be fair to both sides; but few people would. The most ardent Remainers on here have been arguing for years that the EU would act entriely for the benefit of its members and would get the best it could for its members, fairness not coming into it. I don't see anything, now, to argue against that.

Boris did have a fantastic "oven ready" deal that would involve mutual free trade as before. Unfortunately the EU does not want mutual free trade with the UK. Boris and others thought that, ultimately, they would. We were wrong.

I'm not disagreeing with you, or the previous poster, to a major extent on the majority of what you say, but how can you say that PM Johnson did have a fantastic "oven ready" deal, when Johnson himself now is effectively saying the deal is unsatisfactory?
Loads of people told him when he changed the Withdrawal Agreement that he was putting a border down the Irish Sea, (something that May could have done, but wouldn't in principle). People in his own government and his advisers said that this was the case, (not just remainer), but he constantly lied about it.
He then put this Withdrawal Agreement in his manifesto and , (for those who considered the GE to be a sort of confirmatory referendum) he got it through.
So either he was lying all the time, never thought it was a good deal, and had every intention of reneging on it once he got a majority, or (to give him the benefit of the doubt) he has such a poor grasp of detail and such a careless attitude to important matters, he failed to understand what he was signing up to. Which was it? Did he deliberately fool you or is he simply incompetent?
Given his previous track record, either or both are possible.

[clarethomer]

I'm not disagreeing with you, or the previous poster, to a major extent on the majority of what you say, but how can you say that PM Johnson did have a fantastic "oven ready" deal, when Johnson himself now is effectively saying the deal is unsatisfactory?

My take on it is that we have presented the legal texts and tried to present the deal we think is fair and workable. That was the deal he had ready.

The EU are not prepared to look at this because of they want to sort out level playing fields and fisheries.

The WA from what we are being told was signed with 'lots still to discuss in good faith'. As the 2 parties are discussing things, these interpretations are getting clearer in that they weren't clear enough and each party is taking a defensive position.

Its not conducive to negotiations full stop.

Loads of people told him when he changed the Withdrawal Agreement that he was putting a border down the Irish Sea, (something that May could have done, but wouldn't in principle). People in his own government and his advisers said that this was the case, (not just remainer), but he constantly lied about it.
He then put this Withdrawal Agreement in his manifesto and , (for those who considered the GE to be a sort of confirmatory referendum) he got it through.
So either he was lying all the time, never thought it was a good deal, and had every intention of reneging on it once he got a majority, or (to give him the benefit of the doubt) he has such a poor grasp of detail and such a careless attitude to important matters, he failed to understand what he was signing up to. Which was it? Did he deliberately fool you or is he simply incompetent?
Given his previous track record, either or both are possible.

I think there is an element of truth in this in terms of the WA alterations potentially putting a border down it.

I refer back to my last point in that assumptions of understanding and what would/wouldn't be acceptable and this now being used to leverage position in the negotiations have probably driven the government to want to protect their position.

Not an ideal situation but equally, I don't think by pushing this internal market bill is seen negatively by those people who want brexit. The Japan trade deal progressing provides some reassurance that deals are able to still be done and you would have thought if there was any reservations on it not going ahead, it wouldn't have been announced in the way it was.

I get it's not perfect and the people involved haven''t approached it necessarily in the ideal way at times but it's cause and affect. Boris and his government came into the election promising to get brexit done - having been forced to die in the ditch at the end of October last year. There was probably a view of wanting to return the faith put in him and his government to show he was serious.

There also needs to be an appreciation that given the way Parliament had been acting and the other parties, the appetite to allow anything to get stitched up in there was never going to happen. This is what I meant in my last response about the way Brexit has been opposed and the position the main opposition took in all of this.

I will use some words said already - The way Parliament and the Government has delivered Brexit has been a **** show. Its a collective responsibility and with hindsight one that could have been done so differently. However - it wasn't and we are where we are. I am happy for us to have some insurance against the EU to ensure their protectionism doesn't come at the cost of NI being excluded from the UK.

[RMutt]

Anyone else thinking this when it comes to Andrew...?

download (1).jpeg

Interesting. I read most of the political threads and I think recognise which posters are left and which are right. The left learners have acknowledged failings in Labour’s campaigns, message, leader, policies etc. But I’ve seen very little criticism of the Tories from the right tendency. perhaps one who ‘lent’ their vote. That’s despite the massive cock ups, u turns, lies, incompetence etc. etc. In fact I would go as far as to say they have defended the indefensible. I don’t think it is the left with their head in the sand.

*Leaners not learners. Spellcheck I presume.

[AndrewJB]

Thousands?
The number who voted for Labour from 2017-2019 dropped by about 1.5 million.

Your claim is off by a few.

“Switched over” is the operative term here. The Tory vote only rose by a few hundred thousand, and not all of them were ex-Labour voters. Thousands, not millions.

[AndrewJB]

Their attempted position was to put themselves in a place where both Brexit supporters and Brexit opponents would look at that policy and say "that works for me". It didn't succeed.

The probem was that a lot of people (and not just Brexit supporters) thought that a deal for leaving, negotiated by two parties who both did not want to leave, wouldn't be any sort of sensible deal. I for one, and I know I was far from alone, thought that Labour's purported second referendum would be a choice between leaving on awful terms or staying on the EU's terms.

So you understood their position? I think most people did.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

“Switched over” is the operative term here. The Tory vote only rose by a few hundred thousand, and not all of them were ex-Labour voters. Thousands, not millions.

Tory vote went up by just over a million.

Again, your numbers are wrong.

[aggi]

Tory vote went up by just over a million.

Again, your numbers are wrong.

13,966,454 - 13,636,684 isn't just over a million.

[Clarets4me]

Fact Check .....

The Conservatives gained 329,770 votes in 2019 compared to 2017 ( 13,966,454 / 13,636,684 )
The Labour Party lost 2,609,409 votes in 2019 compared to 2017 ( 10,269,051 / 12,878,460 )
The Lib/Dems gained 1,324,509 votes in 2019 compared to 2017 ( 3,696,419 / 2,371,910 )

There were actually 751,821 more people eligible to vote in 2019 than 2017 ( 47,587,254 / 46,835,433 ) , although 190,074 less valid votes were actually cast. Despite the Lib Dems gaining over 1.3m votes, they actually lost a seat going from 12 MP's to 11. The Brexit party did not stand against Conservative MP's, so only stood in 275 seats ( 2017, UKIP stood in 378 ). Despite standing in 103 less Constituencies, they gained 50,189 more votes than UKIP did in 2017. This tactic gained the Tories some seats, but probably lost them gains in Sunderland and Hartlepool ...

I suspect the vast majority of Conservative " Remainers " stayed loyal to the Tories, for fear of a Corbyn Government, with perhaps 10% defecting to the Lib Dems . A large number of moderate Labour " Remainers " voted Lib-Dem, ( attracted by their firm stance ), whereas Labour's vote held up in London , the big Cities and those places with large student populations.

The Conservative majority in Burnley ( It still seems strange when I write it ! ) was 1,352. The Brexit Party and the local Burnley & Padiham Independent Party totalled 4,524 votes between them ( 3,362 and 1,162 respectively ), so what would have happened had they not stood ?
I think that the Greens would have gained another 500 votes or so, some would have abstained, but the Conservative majority would have been in the region of 3 - 4,000 ..

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Oops misread the numbers earlier for the Tories.

Don't anyone tell Andrew that my tally for Labour was also low, he's adamant its only thousands.

[AndrewJB]

Oops misread the numbers earlier for the Tories.

Don't anyone tell Andrew that my tally for Labour was also low, he's adamant its only thousands.

If the Tory vote only went up by a few hundred thousand, then millions of Labour voters couldn’t have switched.

[aggi]

If the Tory vote only went up by a few hundred thousand, then millions of Labour voters couldn’t have switched.

Technically they could. Tory voters could also have switched (or not voted).

I think there have been surveys of where voters went, probably lord Ashcroft I'd guess, but I can't remember what they showed.

My guess would be that labour did lose plenty of votes to the Tories but it was a long term process with UKIP as a stepping stone.