General Election Is On

[aggi]

It is indeed, I agree, difficult. But having met the man and seeing people like Cummings follow him (who is devoted to regional rebalance) I feel confident. I see him rather than someone not empathic, but as someone who struggles to handle his emotions, and I see him as very emotional at this degree of trust put in him from areas that even Thatcher couldn't win.

The only scenario I feel he may diverge from it is if the economy does get into trouble, because despite preferring both I feel he wants power more than he wants to repay that trust, but he is not unusual in that sense.

So do you think he's significantly changed from when he was London mayor and over-promised and under-delivered? To me (and I followed that campaign and voted for him) it all feels very familiar with the big promises followed by the spin on the numbers.

[RingoMcCartney]

I’ve always said that eversheddyeddie is a complete ****, and every post he makes these days just proves the point. The fact that he was a teacher shows why today’s education system is very, very broken. If he was as intelligent as he thinks, he would have f*cked off years ago.

I agree Benny. Tell you what intrigues me about Edward. As a teacher, If you've spent your career being surrounded by irritating, noisy, spotty , badly behaved youths. Why oh why would you , as a man of a certain vintage, in your retirement, wish to spend watching your football team stood, slap bang in the middle of the one stand where your guaranteed to be surrounded by irritating, noisy, spotty , badly behaved youths, singing every song at 100 miles an hour!? Namely the cricketfied stand.

Don't know about you, itd be the last stand I'd go in!

Each to their own I suppose.

[ksrclaret]

I respect opinions on this, and as I wrote above I want a new settlement and am sympathetic to those who blame the choices Cameron made. But capitalism only working for billionaires? We have to address these kinds of delusions.

I was born in a council house, went to a crap school, never went to university (nobody in my family ever has), never had a handout or a favour, and won’t get an inheritence, but I grafted, became an accountant, and now run my own business with a decent (though not rich) lifestyle and I live in a lovely area.

That’s capitalism. It provides social mobility, fuels aspiration, and helps out those born without privilege in rundown towns. I struggle to see how any elements of socialism would have helped me in any way, and it has failed almost everywhere in the world it has been tried.

I do sympathise with the left. Blair was a disaster, with his focus on degrees for all and spreading wealth through tax credits (which fuels an entitlement culture still present today). Hopefully Johnson’s very different premiership will persuade people that capitalism can work for all in society, we’ll see.

That's all very nice, but what you described is not capitalism. It's equality of opportunity, and to suggest that couldn't exist with socialism (not that I have once mentioned socialism) is the real delusion.

You didn't answer my questions though - are you happy with the prices you're currently paying for energy? insurance? trains? etc. I'm most defintely not happy being ripped off every month lining the pockets of a few billionaires who pay less than their fair share of tax. If you are, fair enough.

[Colburn_Claret]

The problem with Johnson is, unlike a lot of other potential PMs, he has a track record in leadership to look back on. Unfortunately that track record includes a hell of a lot of broken promises and commitments that he didn't see through.

Maybe he's changed and this leadership will be different but it's difficult not to look on him with suspicion.

No man is an island, whether you are talking abot Boris, or Corbyn or anyother leader, none of them have autonomy on making decisions or promises. They all have advisers, the numbers men behind them. The Tories have their foot in the door in the North, it would be madness to remove it. I think the faceless people are doing a great job. He talks the talk can he walk the walk. One nation Conservatism, can it pull the country together. They'll never get a better chance. If we had a one nation Labour party, we may never have had the chance to find out.
One thing we know from Tory history is the Right wing will stay quiet, until they think it isnt working. You can't rock the boat on someone who just won you an 80 seat majority.

[AndrewJB]

I respect opinions on this, and as I wrote above I want a new settlement and am sympathetic to those who blame the choices Cameron made. But capitalism only working for billionaires? We have to address these kinds of delusions.

I was born in a council house, went to a crap school, never went to university (nobody in my family ever has), never had a handout or a favour, and won’t get an inheritence, but I grafted, became an accountant, and now run my own business with a decent (though not rich) lifestyle and I live in a lovely area.

That’s capitalism. It provides social mobility, fuels aspiration, and helps out those born without privilege in rundown towns. I struggle to see how any elements of socialism would have helped me in any way, and it has failed almost everywhere in the world it has been tried.

I do sympathise with the left. Blair was a disaster, with his focus on degrees for all and spreading wealth through tax credits (which fuels an entitlement culture still present today). Hopefully Johnson’s very different premiership will persuade people that capitalism can work for all in society, we’ll see.

We don’t live in a purely capitalist society, so you’d be wrong to believe your good fortune is entirely down to it. What the elements of socialism within our country have done is equal things out more, so more likely to have played a role in your success. If any of us go back four or more generations, when we were far more capitalist than now, social mobility of the kind you experienced was unusual. It didn’t matter very much how much harder people worked because they worked to eat and have a roof. Go back a further few generations and our ancestors lived in what is called “high capitalism” - where unions were banned, and only seven percent of men had the vote. Children worked and died in factories, and starvation wasn’t unusual.

Things changed after WW2, when things like the NHS and the welfare state were created. Now however inequality is back to the levels of a hundred years ago, and the hopes of children today of emulating your success, or even just owning property, are far less likely.

[If it be your will]

Genuine question IIBYW. Why in 2018 did you go back to your posts and views from 2017 and remove them all? Changing your mind and views is fine but not standing by your own comments seems a bit odd to me.

I do this from time to time. I'm a secretive sort. When posts drop off the end of the messageboard (after about 2 years without the thread being viewed), what happens to all these posts? I don't like the idea of internet eternity, so when I get round to it I get rid of everything whilst I still have access to them. I'm due to do it again, when I get round to it. I try not to delete those posts where the thread might be resurrected, because it might ruin the thread.

It actually has nothing to do with consistency. What were you thinking of particularly? Have I fundamentally changed my position on something? I can't immediately think what, but if I have, I'd be more than happy to explain why.

[AndrewJB]

No man is an island, whether you are talking abot Boris, or Corbyn or anyother leader, none of them have autonomy on making decisions or promises. They all have advisers, the numbers men behind them. The Tories have their foot in the door in the North, it would be madness to remove it. I think the faceless people are doing a great job. He talks the talk can he walk the walk. One nation Conservatism, can it pull the country together. They'll never get a better chance. If we had a one nation Labour party, we may never have had the chance to find out.
One thing we know from Tory history is the Right wing will stay quiet, until they think it isnt working. You can't rock the boat on someone who just won you an 80 seat majority.

The right wing of the Tory Party are never quiet, and Johnson’s cabinet is full of them. He fired the more moderate people in his party, so this is what he’s stuck with. In any case he’s made no commitments to end austerity other than the promises about more police, hospitals, and nurses. The likelihood is we’ll get more of the same, plus Brexit.

[aggi]

I respect opinions on this, and as I wrote above I want a new settlement and am sympathetic to those who blame the choices Cameron made. But capitalism only working for billionaires? We have to address these kinds of delusions.

I was born in a council house, went to a crap school, never went to university (nobody in my family ever has), never had a handout or a favour, and won’t get an inheritence, but I grafted, became an accountant, and now run my own business with a decent (though not rich) lifestyle and I live in a lovely area.

That’s capitalism. It provides social mobility, fuels aspiration, and helps out those born without privilege in rundown towns. I struggle to see how any elements of socialism would have helped me in any way, and it has failed almost everywhere in the world it has been tried.

I do sympathise with the left. Blair was a disaster, with his focus on degrees for all and spreading wealth through tax credits (which fuels an entitlement culture still present today). Hopefully Johnson’s very different premiership will persuade people that capitalism can work for all in society, we’ll see.

There seems to be quite a hefty contradiction here.

[Quickenthetempo]

Ringo, I've asked you the same question twice recently and you've obviously read it but you have chosen not to answer it. Why?

I'll give you another chance. Despite winning the most seats, the vote split shows that less than 44% of the country wanted a Tory government and that 56% of the country did not want a Tory government.

Conservative Party Share 43.6% Votes 13,966,565 Seats 365

Labour Party Share 32.2% Votes 10,295,607 Seats 203

Liberal Democrats Share 11.6% Votes 3,696,423 Seats 11

Scottish National Party Share 3.9% Votes 1,242,372 Seats 48

Source: PA Media via dpa-infocom.

What stands out is that the Lib Dems polled three times as many votes as the SNP but only won 11 seats compared to the SNP's 48.

Given your democratic credentials would you agree that the make up of parliament does not represent the views of the British people and that our electoral system is in need of reform?

Would be interested to hear what all the other Brexiteers on here think as well.

There was a big fuss caused in the last election when UKIP got a decent % of votes but no seats and the opposition loved it.

It is unfair, but what other options are there?

[RingoMcCartney]

Should we leave the EU? That argument continues and can only be resolved (if ever) when we find out what leaving brings.

"that argument is only settled when we see the impact.

Even mega europhile, Michael Heseltine has admitted defeat , and says Remsin has lost the arguement

"Battle for UK to remain in the EU is now lost and rejoining admits Lord Heseltine" | The Independent
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 46611.html

Was I on winning the side of the arguement Marty?
Were you on the losing side of the arguement Marty?

Yes or no?

Is the arguement over now Marty and did I win Marty?

Yes or no?

[Devils_Advocate]

I do this from time to time. I'm a secretive sort. When posts drop off the end of the messageboard (after about 2 years without the thread being viewed), what happens to all these posts? I don't like the idea of internet eternity, so when I get round to it I get rid of everything whilst I still have access to them. I'm due to do it again, when I get round to it. I try not to delete those posts where the thread might be resurrected, because it might ruin the thread.

It actually has nothing to do with consistency. What were you thinking of particularly? Have I fundamentally changed my position on something? I can't immediately think what, but if I have, I'd be more than happy to explain why.

I was just looking at how far back the initial Brexit threads went cos I know a lot in the early days got deleted and there was a lot of posts from you with just a dot.

Out of curiosity I had a look at the threads cos where people quoted you what you posted could still be seen. I cant remember the exact posts and I was only skimming through them but your deleted posts seemed to really back Labour and be dead against a Tory brexit or govt in any sense. In 2018 you got to stage where you were advocating voting for Farage as any kind of Brexit even a hard right wing one seem to be better than Labour and was a means to an end.

Your explanation is fair enough and as said I only skimmed through a few posts but it did seem to align to you have quite a change into your approach to Brexit. From a few posts Im not in a position to judge or be sure of anything but I was a little intrigued hence the question

[AndrewJB]

There was a big fuss caused in the last election when UKIP got a decent % of votes but no seats and the opposition loved it.

It is unfair, but what other options are there?

I’m no UKIP fan, but I think if you get the votes, you should get the seats. PR all the way, as it’ll end tactical voting, or people just not bothering to vote in safe seats. Consensual politics rather than adversarial.

[IWOODLOVETT]

Australian voting is compulsory and non-voting can result in a fine. Good system in principle but hard to enforce/ manage.

[If it be your will]

I was just looking at how far back the initial Brexit threads went cos I know a lot in the early days got deleted and there was a lot of posts from you with just a dot.

Out of curiosity I had a look at the threads cos where people quoted you what you posted could still be seen. I cant remember the exact posts and I was only skimming through them but your deleted posts seemed to really back Labour and be dead against a Tory brexit or govt in any sense. In 2018 you got to stage where you were advocating voting for Farage as any kind of Brexit even a hard right wing one seem to be better than Labour and was a means to an end.

Your explanation is fair enough and as said I only skimmed through a few posts but it did seem to align to you have quite a change into your approach to Brexit. From a few posts Im not in a position to judge or be sure of anything but I was a little intrigued hence the question

Ah yes. I really, really did back Labour. I thought their 2019 manifesto (and their 2017 manifesto) was simply brilliant. It contained pretty much exactly what the country needed to begin to repair itself. I backed Labour solidly right up to when Thornberry took it upon herself to unilaterally announce, on the evening of the Euro election, on live TV, totally against the official party line, a change in Labour's Brexit position. Before that I warned repeatedly that such a move would lead to a Brexit policy that would make absolutely no sense - I think I said it would render it 'incoherent gibberish'. And so it proved. ("We will negotiate a new deal, put it to a 2nd referendum with remain as the alternative, and nearly all of Labour's front bench will campaign for remain, against our own negotiated deal" qualifies, by any measure, as 'incoherent gibberish'.) And not only that, this change meant that I had personally, inadvertently, lied to hundreds of people in 2017, by categorically insisting Labour would definitely deliver Brexit.

From that moment on the Corbyn project was completely doomed.

Deeper than that, to my horror, it finally dawned that the old accusation that the left actually despise the working class was largely true. When it came to the crunch, it turned out the left only want what's best for the working class provided they have absolutely no say in what happens. Simply written off by the left as hopeless thickos (Thornberry again: I'm glad my constituents aren't as stupid as yours, or Paul Mason: The ex-miner in the pub that doesn't care if he crashes the economy so long as the migrants go away, or Owen Jones, well pretty much everything Owen Jones said on Brexit was condescending nonsense). As Eddie Dempsey declared "If the educated middle class want socialism, I mean really want socialism, they would do well to remember they will not get it without my class."

As for a Tory hard Brexit. No, I didn't want that. But I remember saying on here in Autumn 2017 that it was increasingly obvious from the negotiations with the EU that the only 2 options available were remain (or even worse, a Brino), or a hard brexit. I plumped for the latter.

Now I just feel incredibly sad, especially for Corbyn. He was pushed into a Brexit position he himself knew was absurd. He will forever regret never having made a clear case for leave since he became leader. He certainly knew the case, having railed against the EU for 40 years, but didn't have the courage to make it as the leader. He'd have probably lost last week anyway (remainers were never going to give up, were they?), but at least he would have died on a hill he actually believed in.

That pretty much sums up 3 years of pointlessly contributing to uptheclarets.

[FactualFrank]

Ringo - if you have a solid point to prove, quit enlarging the text.

[RingoMcCartney]

Ringo - if you have a solid point to prove, quit enlarging the text.

If I needed advice on which is, or isn't, the best way to present a post. I'd be just as unlikely to ask you, what the best way to vote would be, if I wanted to be on the winning side.

Youd be one of the least go-to guys to be brutally frank, Frank.

[ksrclaret]

If I needed advice on which is, or isn't, the best way to present a post. I'd be just as unlikely to ask you, what the best way to vote would be, if I wanted to be on the winning side.

Youd be one of the least go-to guys to be brutally frank, Frank.

Out of interest, who do you go to when you need advice on where to place a full stop in a post? Or even how punctuate a post to even the most basic of levels? Because you're being badly advised at the moment, mate. The above post is shockingly incoherent.

You could do a lot worse than asking Frank how to do it.

[Quickenthetempo]

Out of interest, who do you go to when you need advice on where to place a full stop in a post? Or even how punctuate a post to even the most basic of levels? Because you're being badly advised at the moment, mate. The above post is shockingly incoherent.

You could do a lot worse than asking Frank how to do it.

Don't leave words out, when correcting people.

Check and check again.

[thatdberight]

are you happy with the prices you're currently paying for energy? insurance? trains?

For each of those, what are the mechanisms you envisage by which prices will be lowered? Is it a change in ownership and if so, what will that change? Is it a reduction of the consumer costs and funding of the change through general taxation?

The UK has relatively cheap energy prices.

The train situation is very complex. We have very high "on the day" prices but some relatively low "in advance" prices. We have a ludicrously complex pricing structure - which is now the subject of a review. Unlike energy, that's also a market where cost of living between different countries also plays a bigger part. I also have personally found the difference in prices between UK and Europe to be less marked than you'd imagine from media reports.

I've never seen insurance talked if in these terms before. That seems a very complex comparison to make.

[ksrclaret]

Don't leave words out, when correcting people.

Check and check again.

Well done Quickthetempo you spotted the deliberate mistake I put in there to try to catch people out.

You are on the ball, son. Well done.

[Vegas Claret]

[martin_p]

Even mega europhile, Michael Heseltine has admitted defeat , and says Remsin has lost the arguement

"Battle for UK to remain in the EU is now lost and rejoining admits Lord Heseltine" | The Independent
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 46611.html

Was I on winning the side of the arguement Marty?
Were you on the losing side of the arguement Marty?

Yes or no?

Is the arguement over now Marty and did I win Marty?

Yes or no?

If you’ll tell me what the argument was (third time of asking) I’ll be able to answer your question.

[ksrclaret]

For each of those, what are the mechanisms you envisage by which prices will be lowered? Is it a change in ownership and if so, what will that change? Is it a reduction of the consumer costs and funding of the change through general taxation?

The UK has relatively cheap energy prices.

The train situation is very complex. We have very high "on the day" prices but some relatively low "in advance" prices. We have a ludicrously complex pricing structure - which is now the subject of a review. Unlike energy, that's also a market where cost of living between different countries also plays a bigger part. I also have personally found the difference in prices between UK and Europe to be less marked than you'd imagine from media reports.

I've never seen insurance talked if in these terms before. That seems a very complex comparison to make.

Definitely a change in ownership. Bring them under the control of the government if needs be. The problem at the moment with the industries I've mentioned is that we may have multiple companies offering us 'competition', but all those companies can be traced back to one or two bigger ownership groups. So really there's no competition at all, and the result is ever-increasing prices and the rich group getting richer. That's what I dislike about capitalism. I don't believe it works for the consumer when one group can wrestle control over the entire market. How can it?

[thatdberight]

Definitely a change in ownership. Bring them under the control of the government if needs be. The problem at the moment with the industries I've mentioned is that we may have multiple companies offering us 'competition', but all those companies can be traced back to one or two bigger ownership groups. So really there's no competition at all, and the result is ever-increasing prices and the rich group getting richer. That's what I dislike about capitalism. I don't believe it works for the consumer when one group can wrestle control over the entire market. How can it?

That's a statement of political belief short on both detail and , sorry, facts. The ownership of, say, the big 6 for electricity (who only control 70+%) of the UK market resolves to 6 companies, not one or two (or one as you claim at the end). And that's only the top layer of who we pay - most of the cost comes from a mix of energy suppliers many of whom are outside the control of the UK in any sense. And, as I've said, it's factual that we have low energy costs compared to the rest of Europe so, if it's not competition, it's something delivering that.
Your solution to avoid giving one group control over the market being to give one group control over the market seems to me, having lived through the excesses of labour action within monopolies, dewy-eyed at best.

[Quickenthetempo]

Well done Quickthetempo you spotted the deliberate mistake I put in there to try to catch people out.

You are on the ball, son. Well done.

How exciting. Have you any more games we can play on this boring Sunday night?

[TheFamilyCat]

This was you in full Leader of The Pack mode , wasn't it The Family Cat !!

Surrounded by a dozen or so like minded "liberals"

Happy to gob off with your gang , weren't you!

NOT SO FORTHCOMING NOW


(Cant think why!)

Well Ringo, you have been a busy boy this afternoon. As have I so I've only just seen your series of posts. Maybe I should be flattered that you went to so much trouble.

Shame you didn't dig out the posts where I explained quite clearly my stance on the EU and Brexit. But it's no surprise you're ignoring them now when you also ignored them at the time and instead threw the old "europhile zealot" tag around. Bearing that in mind, it's no wonder I came to the conclusion you were drunk or a lunatic.

Oddly enough, despite being as you brag "proven right", you are still coming across as drunk or a lunatic so there must be something in it.

[ksrclaret]

How exciting. Have you any more games we can play on this boring Sunday night?

If your Sunday night is boring why don't you try doing something different with it? This is your life, quickenthetempo, and you only get one of them. Don't waste it being bored

[ksrclaret]

That's a statement of political belief short on both detail and , sorry, facts. The ownership of, say, the big 6 for electricity (who only control 70+%) of the UK market resolves to 6 companies, not one or two (or one as you claim at the end). And that's only the top layer of who we pay - most of the cost comes from a mix of energy suppliers many of whom are outside the control of the UK in any sense. And, as I've said, it's factual that we have low energy costs compared to the rest of Europe so, if it's not competition, it's something delivering that.
Your solution to avoid giving one group control over the market being to give one group control over the market seems to me, having lived through the excesses of labour action within monopolies, dewy-eyed at best.

6 billionaires, sorry, I stand corrected. I'm happy with that then.

Look, you're obviously fine with the prices you're paying for these essential services. For others winter fuel payments are necessary for survival of this season. Something has gone terribly wrong somewhere, and you won't convince me that taking these industries into public control won't be better than what we have now.

[AndrewJB]

That's a statement of political belief short on both detail and , sorry, facts. The ownership of, say, the big 6 for electricity (who only control 70+%) of the UK market resolves to 6 companies, not one or two (or one as you claim at the end). And that's only the top layer of who we pay - most of the cost comes from a mix of energy suppliers many of whom are outside the control of the UK in any sense. And, as I've said, it's factual that we have low energy costs compared to the rest of Europe so, if it's not competition, it's something delivering that.
Your solution to avoid giving one group control over the market being to give one group control over the market seems to me, having lived through the excesses of labour action within monopolies, dewy-eyed at best.

What does the UK gain by having a privately operated energy market?

[thatdberight]

6 billionaires, sorry, I stand corrected. I'm happy with that then.

Look, you're obviously fine with the prices you're paying for these essential services. For others winter fuel payments are necessary for survival of this season. Something has gone terribly wrong somewhere, and you won't convince me that taking these industries into public control won't be better than what we have now.

No. 6 mostly publicly quoted companies. But clearly, to you, it's just about kicking out against something. If there's evidence lots of other countries have markets that deliver better prices, throw it in. If I misunderstand the research that says our market delivers prices quite well, I want to know that. I think our system is delivering.

[thatdberight]

What does the UK gain by having a privately operated energy market?

Competition among the companies whose total cost is about 18% of the total. Ensuring innovation and keeping manageable the operations of those who are 23%. The rest is obviously outside the UK's control. Ensuring that any monopoly position is not abused for profit, lack of effort or transferred to be a monopoly that operates for the benefit of a small workforce.

[CrosspoolClarets]

So do you think he's significantly changed from when he was London mayor and over-promised and under-delivered? To me (and I followed that campaign and voted for him) it all feels very familiar with the big promises followed by the spin on the numbers.

I think he wants to deliver (as opposed to pretending to want to).

Maybe as London Mayor he wanted to but couldn’t get some things over the line (though to be elected for a second term in a Labour city he had to be doing something right).

Hopefully with his new mandate and being the big boss he can deliver what he wants to.

[ksrclaret]

No. 6 mostly publicly quoted companies. But clearly, to you, it's just about kicking out against something. If there's evidence lots of other countries have markets that deliver better prices, throw it in. If I misunderstand the research that says our market delivers prices quite well, I want to know that. I think our system is delivering.

You clearly invested in shares in the industry at the right time and are doing very well out of it. Doesn’t seem that sustainable to me though so you might want to be thinking about an exit point.

[Devils_Advocate]

I manage projects within the Utilities industry and over the last couple of years the squeeze on profits, share price and dividends is so intense that companies are starting to cut costs by knowingly excluding groups of people.

Energy is a basic need and everyone's basic access to heat and electricity should take precedent over shareholders profits and if that means we have increased costs through nationaliation then that is the right thing to do as a rich and fair society

[CrosspoolClarets]

We don’t live in a purely capitalist society, so you’d be wrong to believe your good fortune is entirely down to it. What the elements of socialism within our country have done is equal things out more, so more likely to have played a role in your success. If any of us go back four or more generations, when we were far more capitalist than now, social mobility of the kind you experienced was unusual. It didn’t matter very much how much harder people worked because they worked to eat and have a roof. Go back a further few generations and our ancestors lived in what is called “high capitalism” - where unions were banned, and only seven percent of men had the vote. Children worked and died in factories, and starvation wasn’t unusual.

Things changed after WW2, when things like the NHS and the welfare state were created. Now however inequality is back to the levels of a hundred years ago, and the hopes of children today of emulating your success, or even just owning property, are far less likely.

Obviously my point wasn’t so much about me but an example concerning everyone. There will always be a big element down to the unique individual and what they are able to achieve, a meritocracy element if you will, to add to the socialist / capitalist mix you describe.

I would concur that there are socialist elements in our society (free education and healthcare being two). Unfortunately education is a postcode lottery, and the thing that dictates that is where someone lives, which is linked to how much capital they have accumulated. So the thing that can lead to achievement in life is linked to the capitalist element.

Generally, the capital someone can be allowed to accumulate plays a major role in their life experience in the UK. Owning their home, owning a car, investing for their retirement etc. I thus feel confident that the capitalism element of the UK is of more benefit than the socialist element for most people, the social bit should be to provide a safety net for those who fall short.

I tend to find your pessimism about the UK today to be totally misplaced, but I have debated that with you before and won’t revisit it tonight other than to say, for example I could point to statistics that child poverty is down since Tony Blair’s time, by the updated modern measure of it from the Social Metrics Commission, but I have never found a left winger who would agree.

[thatdberight]

You clearly invested in shares in the industry at the right time and are doing very well out of it. Doesn’t seem that sustainable to me though so you might want to be thinking about an exit point.

How very perceptive of you.

Or rather, how typically made up because that's what you do. Other than whatever somebody controlling some company pension funds has (of which I know nothing) I have no interest of that sort.

[thatdberight]

I manage projects within the Utilities industry and over the last couple of years the squeeze on profits, share price and dividends is so intense that companies are starting to cut costs by knowingly excluding groups of people.

Energy is a basic need and everyone's basic access to heat and electricity should take precedent over shareholders profits and if that means we have increased costs through nationaliation then that is the right thing to do as a rich and fair society

That, I presume, is the role of the regulator? The last numbers I saw said that pre-tax profits were 73 pence in every £100 of energy bill. It seems to me that's (even if there's been a bit of accounting sleight of hand that means that's somewhat understated) not much to go at in terms of dividends? I don't dispute that it's desirable that people are warm enough - I am not a fan of doing that through any mechanism that involves energy bills per se. People should have "enough" (obviously a subjective argument can then ensue about what that means) and be left to spend it.

[CrosspoolClarets]

There seems to be quite a hefty contradiction here.

Better worded as “would have helped me to progress in any way”. The council house was a valuable safety net for us 50 years ago, but the social mobility came from the ability to accumulate capital and to spend that capital on education to get qualified and to progress in my career. Take away the ability to accumulate capital and we are frankly stuffed.

p.s. I do find it bemusing that the earlier poster started a “is socialism good” debate which led to my original reply, days after an election which soundly rejected it. Mr McDonnell would be very impressed by that perseverence.

[ksrclaret]

How very perceptive of you.

Or rather, how typically made up because that's what you do. Other than whatever somebody controlling some company pension funds has (of which I know nothing) I have no interest of that sort.

Oh sorry, I thought we were reducing each other’s opinions down after your ‘you just want something to kick against’ comment?

Didn’t mean to upset you x

[thatdberight]

Oh sorry, I thought we were reducing each other’s opinions down after your ‘you just want something to kick against’ comment?

Didn’t mean to upset you x

You haven't. I'd have been upset if my previous opinion of you had been misplaced. In this micro-exchange you've just made stuff up because it suits your underlying belief. Having the belief is fine; making up facts to fit it doesn't help.

[Devils_Advocate]

That, I presume, is the role of the regulator? The last numbers I saw said that pre-tax profits were 73 pence in every £100 of energy bill. It seems to me that's (even if there's been a bit of accounting sleight of hand that means that's somewhat understated) not much to go at in terms of dividends?

The regulators are quite strong in the industry but just like the way big business can avoid taxes the big energy companies can find their way around the regulations.

Ive been in and out of the industry a long time an 10 years ago id have defended the energy companies against any criticism of profiteering and not caring but now what im seeing saddens me

Its all well and good passing the buck to someone else and saying its their job but that wont stop people going without hot water and electricity.

I'm not saying nationalisation is the only option but the govt needs to do something and are you really happy to just dismiss it and pass it on to the regulators whilst people suffer and even possibly die?

[Wile E Coyote]

I am left wondering what happened to the youth vote, the ones that banged on relentlessly for the last 3 years. They claimed their votes would have altered the brexit result had they have been of age to vote. Come the general election, we end up with labour being virtually obliterated from the mainstream political map. Due in no small part no doubt to it being all talk, and no action. Add to the that the debacle of eligible voters not even bothering, small wonder we have the tories back.

[ksrclaret]

You haven't. I'd have been upset if my previous opinion of you had been misplaced. In this micro-exchange you've just made stuff up because it suits your underlying belief. Having the belief is fine; making up facts to fit it doesn't help.

Oh that’s a relief I’m glad I didn’t upset you, maybe we could micro-exchange again some day? Let me know x

[thatdberight]

I'm not saying nationalisation is the only option but the govt needs to do something and are you really happy to just dismiss it and pass it on to the regulators whilst people suffer and even possibly die?

Not at all passing it to the regulator. Their remit is, rightly, limited. If there's a failure to ensure the functioning of safety nets that should be in place - that's the government's role. I don't have enough understanding to comment on the extent to which that's happening.

[Devils_Advocate]

Just to add about your extended thoughts when I talk about exclusion money and fuel poverty is only part of the problem.

There is profitability in certain types of customers and the companies have ways of making things really difficult for customers who have a high cost to serve. These measure can leave some of thiose customers in very desperate situations.

Digital exclusion is probably the biggest problem with in the industry at the moment

[TVC15]

I am left wondering what happened to the youth vote, the ones that banged on relentlessly for the last 3 years. They claimed their votes would have altered the brexit result had they have been of age to vote. Come the general election, we end up with labour being virtually obliterated from the mainstream political map. Due in no small part no doubt to it being all talk, and no action. Add to the that the debacle of eligible voters not even bothering, small wonder we have the tories back.

Interesting link below.
Would be better if there were some volumes of voters in each of the age cohorts.
Unfortunately for Labour the fastest growing population is over 65s....it’s actually over 85s if you drop down a level of detail.
I’ve not seen numbers which tell you the percentage of people in various age profiles that voted last week but my guess would be a bigger percentage of older people voted than younger.

https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/ ... 46272?s=12

[Devils_Advocate]

Not at all passing it to the regulator. Their remit is, rightly, limited. If there's a failure to ensure the functioning of safety nets that should be in place - that's the government's role. I don't have enough understanding to comment on the extent to which that's happening.

Fair enough im in the industry and coming at you with lots of bits of info that need a lot better discssion than going back and forth on a footy forum.

[thatdberight]

Digital exclusion is probably the biggest problem with in the industry at the moment

And in society generally. Corbyn was, for me, on the right track but, for me, several miles too far down it. But then that's how any of his half-decent ideas always seem to me. It's not useful to society that the relatively small number of those who can't transact anything online are further penalised financially. But, privatising the whole ISP industry? No.

[Devils_Advocate]

And in society generally. Corbyn was, for me, on the right track but, for me, several miles too far down it. But then that's how any of his half-decent ideas always seem to me. It's not useful to society that the relatively small number of those who can't transact anything online are further penalised financially. But, privatising the whole ISP industry? No.

I guess in conclusion the point I was making (albeit in a long winded way) is that if nationalisation in some cases becomes more costly to run it doesn't automatically follow that its a bad thing.

If running costs are being kept low at the expense of actual people then the burden of the additional cost could be a price worth paying for society as a whole

but its complex!!

[tiger76]

I am left wondering what happened to the youth vote, the ones that banged on relentlessly for the last 3 years. They claimed their votes would have altered the brexit result had they have been of age to vote. Come the general election, we end up with labour being virtually obliterated from the mainstream political map. Due in no small part no doubt to it being all talk, and no action. Add to the that the debacle of eligible voters not even bothering, small wonder we have the tories back.

The full info won't be available for a while,but this Ashcroft poll contains some useful initial info.

https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2019/12/h ... ore-16379

UK turnout was 67% so 1 in 3 registered voters didn't bother to cast a ballot