General Election

There must be more to life than football?
User avatar
theadore
Inexperienced manager
Posts: 9576
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:25 pm

Re: General Election

Post by theadore » Wed May 17, 2017 9:15 am

It's unlikely to work - but its far from bollocks... 'nationalising everything' along with 'take us back to the 70s' and 'cosy up to the unions' is symptomatic of a right wing that is quickly running out of ideas.

The arguments on railways are sound... there is no competition in the supposed market and the government is pouring vast subsidies straight into the pockets of shareholders. Energy too is the right approach.... there should be a competitive market however it lacks transparency and has acted like a cartel for a long time... a state alternative could work, it is certainly no less interventionist than the second hand Milliband policy that the government is putting forwards.

Surely no-one really likes free schools/academies? They're limited success is only due to underfunding across the board. Whether a NES would be the right approach is also debatable... but more money and a level playing field are worthy targets, and certainly better than pining after a rose-tinted view of the past.

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 26836
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Rover the Top » Wed May 17, 2017 10:26 am

mrblackbat wrote:
Wed May 17, 2017 8:37 am
Gibbon wrote:
Tue May 16, 2017 2:50 pm
:lol:

Still voting for them.
The problem is that this really wasn't far off Corbyn's answer to how much we'll be borrowing....

"Meanwhile, readers will be invited to turn to page 51 for reduced borrowing or page 60 for another £435bn in additional spending commitments."

We're going to renationalise everything, in a clearly costed plan, but I'm going to avoid answering the question how much we're going to need to borrow cause we're investing in the "future".

I can understand why he's pretty much only campaigning in massively safe havens cause its the only way he'd get away with saying crap like that and still get a resounding cheer. It's amazing how well it all came across considering it was mostly bollocks; an excellent PR exercise. May even work.
There seems to be two kinds of reactions to it: one is "these are wonderful ideas, what's wrong with all these meanies who don't want them?" and the other is "this is obvious insanity. It's going to cost too much, take the country backwards and leave people worse off. Why are people going for it?" What we actually need is an alternative to the Conservatives that will appeal to both those groups. A renationalisation programme is economic illiteracy, those industries were privatised because they were too costly, inefficient and not fit for purpose under government control. What's needed is amendments to how they operate in an open market, not a return to failed ideology. Attacking companies will affect the employed, be it through loss of jobs or increasing the cost of living. If we're going to close the poverty gap, we need to make the bottom end richer, not the top end poorer.

Sadly, Labour just seem to want to appeal to well-meaning middle-class idealists than make a serious stab at making things better for everyone.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14335
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mrblackbat » Wed May 17, 2017 1:07 pm

theadore wrote:
Wed May 17, 2017 9:15 am
It's unlikely to work - but its far from bollocks... 'nationalising everything' along with 'take us back to the 70s' and 'cosy up to the unions' is symptomatic of a right wing that is quickly running out of ideas.

The arguments on railways are sound... there is no competition in the supposed market and the government is pouring vast subsidies straight into the pockets of shareholders. Energy too is the right approach.... there should be a competitive market however it lacks transparency and has acted like a cartel for a long time... a state alternative could work, it is certainly no less interventionist than the second hand Milliband policy that the government is putting forwards.

Surely no-one really likes free schools/academies? They're limited success is only due to underfunding across the board. Whether a NES would be the right approach is also debatable... but more money and a level playing field are worthy targets, and certainly better than pining after a rose-tinted view of the past.
The arguments on railways are sound, but nationalisation isn't the solution. The problem is the segmentation of the service providers whilst maintaining a centralised ticketing price and a nationalised track infrastructure. This means that the private service providers are limited in what they can actually do to improve service. Plus lunacy from the rail unions in their opposition to DOO trains which is absolutely crippling progress in our rail network. The infrastructure and service should be combined as private units; not re-nationalising the whole service.

Exactly the same problem occurs with the energy market. The supply is nationalised, the administration of it is not.

And the ultimate problem with all of this is that Labour claim to pay for it all with the profits that go to the existing shareholders as dividends, whilst at the same time promising to slash prices and do net zero borrowing. Fantasy.

User avatar
Gibbon
Promising manager
Posts: 17484
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:54 am
Location: Location: Location
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Gibbon » Wed May 17, 2017 2:45 pm

Rover the Top wrote:
Wed May 17, 2017 10:26 am
If we're going to close the poverty gap, we need to make the bottom end richer, not the top end poorer.
With magic money that pops in from nowhere? :hyper:

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14335
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mrblackbat » Wed May 17, 2017 3:02 pm

Actually, yes. Well, no, but by making money irrelevant.

The way to cure poverty is by increasing technology to the level where we can make food, shelter, clothing effectively from nothing. Which isn't as far fetched as it sounds. There are prototype electricity generators that create huge amounts of energy from hydrogen with no byproduct other than fine soot powder, which in turn is required by high end carbon manufacturing so as graphene. I also genuinely believe that with more time and research into the Higgs field, we'll be able to unlock the ability to create mass out of energy. And I also firmly believe that technology will ultimately provide us with an effectively unlimited source of food, from vat grown and 3d printed meat, to crops that can be grown in multi storey warehouses like they're currently doing in Japan.

However, a huge driver in most of these advances is commercial success. (With the exception of higgs field research; but it will come when we get closer to having commercial applications for it).

As such, we need a healthy economy and booming commerce, far more than we need to give everyone two hundred quid back on their energy bills or to renationalise the railways. The best way to do that is to reduce commercial taxes, not increase them.

User avatar
Ethiaa
Site Admin
Posts: 13328
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:22 am
Location: Preston
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Ethiaa » Wed May 17, 2017 3:08 pm

Which party has that in their manifesto?

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 26836
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Rover the Top » Wed May 17, 2017 3:26 pm

Gibbon wrote:
Wed May 17, 2017 2:45 pm
Rover the Top wrote:
Wed May 17, 2017 10:26 am
If we're going to close the poverty gap, we need to make the bottom end richer, not the top end poorer.
With magic money that pops in from nowhere? :hyper:

:roll: No, by providing a stable economy where employment remains high and allowing low earners to keep more in their pocket. A worker doing a full-time 37.5 hours a week on the National Living Wage with the standard tax code will pay £625 a year in Income Tax. There's scope there to give them more disposable income to spend, some of which would find it's way back into the government coffers anyway through other taxes.

User avatar
Dan
Unemployed ex-pro
Posts: 6623
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:08 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Dan » Wed May 17, 2017 3:42 pm

mrblackbat wrote:
Wed May 17, 2017 3:02 pm
And I also firmly believe that technology will ultimately provide us with an effectively unlimited source of food, from vat grown and 3d printed meat, to crops that can be grown in multi storey warehouses like they're currently doing in Japan.
:yeahright: I'd be more inclined to work harder if I could have a 3D meat printer on the desk...

User avatar
Gibbon
Promising manager
Posts: 17484
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:54 am
Location: Location: Location
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Gibbon » Wed May 17, 2017 4:23 pm

3D printed cooked bacon. :hyper:

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14335
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mrblackbat » Wed May 17, 2017 4:57 pm

Ethiaa wrote:
Wed May 17, 2017 3:08 pm
Which party has that in their manifesto?
Mine.

User avatar
Gibbon
Promising manager
Posts: 17484
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:54 am
Location: Location: Location
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Gibbon » Wed May 17, 2017 7:27 pm

Rover the Top wrote:
Wed May 17, 2017 3:26 pm

:roll: No, by providing a stable economy where employment remains high and allowing low earners to keep more in their pocket. A worker doing a full-time 37.5 hours a week on the National Living Wage with the standard tax code will pay £625 a year in Income Tax. There's scope there to give them more disposable income to spend, some of which would find it's way back into the government coffers anyway through other taxes.
Yeah sure. But if the poorer end of society has more money, then the richer end has less. There's only so much to go around. Unless you think we should print some more? :hyper:

Why the hell am I arguing with an accountant about money? This must be the stupidest thing I've done in a while.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14335
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mrblackbat » Wed May 17, 2017 10:36 pm

Gibbon wrote:
Wed May 17, 2017 7:27 pm
Rover the Top wrote:
Wed May 17, 2017 3:26 pm

:roll: No, by providing a stable economy where employment remains high and allowing low earners to keep more in their pocket. A worker doing a full-time 37.5 hours a week on the National Living Wage with the standard tax code will pay £625 a year in Income Tax. There's scope there to give them more disposable income to spend, some of which would find it's way back into the government coffers anyway through other taxes.
Yeah sure. But if the poorer end of society has more money, then the richer end has less. There's only so much to go around. Unless you think we should print some more? :hyper:

Why the hell am I arguing with an accountant about money? This must be the stupidest thing I've done in a while.
The world is way richer now than it was fifty years ago. It's possible for everyone to get richer.

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 26836
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Rover the Top » Thu May 18, 2017 7:57 am

Gibbon wrote:
Wed May 17, 2017 7:27 pm

Yeah sure. But if the poorer end of society has more money, then the richer end has less. There's only so much to go around. Unless you think we should print some more? :hyper:
Eh? :? Populations and wages increase, yet the rich are still getting richer. But you think there's only so much money to go round... If that's a common mistake amongst the left, it would explain a lot. :yeahright:

User avatar
Gibbon
Promising manager
Posts: 17484
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:54 am
Location: Location: Location
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Gibbon » Thu May 18, 2017 10:37 am

Fair point.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14335
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mrblackbat » Thu May 18, 2017 11:24 am

To be honest, that view does underpin a strong suspiscion that whilst there are a few that are altruistic in their motivation for the wealthy to pay a higher proportion of taxation, that many actually think that way due to jealousy and a belief in social injustice, rightly or wrongly.

Which, when taken to a global level, almost everyone in this country is actually stinking rich.

Post Reply