The Politics Thread

[BWFC_Insane]

Yougov poll of Tory members tonight…

62% Truss
38% Sunak

Tory party really have eaten themselves. They don’t exist as a serious entity anymore.

Meanwhile on "trash out Thursday" the sneaked another £5bn onto the Brexit divorce bill, to go nicely alongside the £19bn interest payment on our debt.

They’ve maxed out the credit cards, exhausted all the high interest pay day loans and are now selling our organs for cash.

Can you imagine if a Labour government had ever come even halfway close to this level of economic incompetence or mess what we’d be seeing?

Nobody can ever with a straight face proclaim the Tories are anything other than the party of huge borrowing and debt.

[Harry Genshaw]

Yougov poll of Tory members tonight…

62% Truss
38% Sunak

Tory party really have eaten themselves. They don’t exist as a serious entity anymore.

I'm torn between hilarity and more than a little fear. I'm aghast that so many Tory MPs can take Truss seriously and not see her for the vacuous, condescending charlatan she clearly is. If the members cant see it either, it's us, the UK, who are about to face further humiliation and disaster.

[BWFC_Insane]

Yougov poll of Tory members tonight…

62% Truss
38% Sunak

Tory party really have eaten themselves. They don’t exist as a serious entity anymore.

I'm torn between hilarity and more than a little fear. I'm aghast that so many Tory MPs can take Truss seriously and not see her for the vacuous, condescending charlatan she clearly is. If the members cant see it either, it's us, the UK, who are about to face further humiliation and disaster.

The pitiful thing is they have a candidate in sunak who whilst I disagree with much he might politicise does actually know what the hell he’s doing. A competent traditional Tory. Yet we are getting Liz ‘dogs scare drones’ Truss.

[Bruce Rioja]

I'm not sure that Winston Churchill would've made it through if he was standing today. This is a fecking disaster.

[Hoboh]

quote="Bruce Rioja" post_id=1137089 time=1658471532 user_id=123]
I'm not sure that Winston Churchill would've made it through if he was standing today. This is a fecking disaster.
[/quote]

The problem is Bruce no smart person in the Tory party would touch the current situation with a pair of welding gloves.

I think that's the real reason Wallace decided politely not to stand.
Sorry mate don't know how the devil that emoji got up? I'm on the phone and been working all night.

[BWFC_Insane]

quote="Bruce Rioja" post_id=1137089 time=1658471532 user_id=123]
I'm not sure that Winston Churchill would've made it through if he was standing today. This is a fecking disaster.

The problem is Bruce no smart person in the Tory party would touch the current situation with a pair of welding gloves.

I think that's the real reason Wallace decided politely not to stand.
Sorry mate don't know how the devil that emoji got up? I'm on the phone and been working all night.
[/quote]

Happens on mobile all the time.

I think you are right on Wallace. He sees the economic mess we are an and doesn’t want to be associated.

[Bruce Rioja]

I think you are right on Wallace. He sees the economic mess we are an and doesn’t want to be associated.

Today's tiny crumb of comfort comes from realising that Ben Wallace is four years younger than me. I thought he was at least six years older

[Worthy4England]

There's no doubt we're not in a great place. Debt the highest it's ever been. Taxes pretty much the same. Growth generally not very strong. Inflation screwed and higher demands on the budget we do have. As a sensible person, I might argue there have been some extenuating circumstances. Then again, in 2008, I don't recall the international financial markets collapse being blamed on anyone other than the government. So fcuk 'em.

Truss's answers to address this are particularly uninspiring. Mumblings around BoE should follow the government line and the like, when the reason it was given it's independence was so we weren't in the Thatcher/Lawson "Boom/Bust" years, by using the wrong levers to win elections. And she's going to give tax cuts we can't afford and just push the debt problem onto the kids. At the same time, she's going to "turbo-charge" growth...great words, but I've yet to hear one thing or policy which might go some way to doing that.

Sort it out.

[Worthy4England]

And they're going to roll out a "Boris Bus" at the Hustings, apparently. Maybe they want to put the debt number on the side of it. They like big numbers.

[BWFC_Insane]

There's no doubt we're not in a great place. Debt the highest it's ever been. Taxes pretty much the same. Growth generally not very strong. Inflation screwed and higher demands on the budget we do have. As a sensible person, I might argue there have been some extenuating circumstances. Then again, in 2008, I don't recall the international financial markets collapse being blamed on anyone other than the government. So fcuk 'em.

Truss's answers to address this are particularly uninspiring. Mumblings around BoE should follow the government line and the like, when the reason it was given it's independence was so we weren't in the Thatcher/Lawson "Boom/Bust" years, by using the wrong levers to win elections. And she's going to give tax cuts we can't afford and just push the debt problem onto the kids. At the same time, she's going to "turbo-charge" growth...great words, but I've yet to hear one thing or policy which might go some way to doing that.

Sort it out.

Can I add that this doesn’t go far enough on Truss’ economically illiterate plans. They aren’t just a bit bad they are dangerous, likely to spike inflation further and leave the banks unable to calm the financial storm or even alleviate it at all. We’d have interest rates rising and it would mean repossessions of quite a few of the 11M mortgaged properties.

I don’t particularly want to exonerate sunak for the damage he did as chancellor in Johnson’s administration but by god he was on the radio explaining his plan and it made sense, concurs with normal economic thinking and isn’t reliant on a pair of right wing, Tory embedded economists to back it up. Raising corporation tax for large businesses but reducing tax on investment sounds absolutely spot on to encourage businesses to actually invest and spur growth and try and stop these large businesses from just taking out.


I find it bewildering that a man who Christ even I might vote for is being disregarded by Tory members for an empty bag of wind, propelled in the breeze by some incredibly dangerous sorts behind her. It’s shocking, really shocking.

I’d rather have bloody Corbyn running the show than her.

[Worthy4England]

I find it bewildering that a man who Christ even I might vote for is being disregarded by Tory members for an empty bag of wind, propelled in the breeze by some incredibly dangerous sorts behind her. It’s shocking, really shocking.

See, that bit, I could see why, if he half appeals to you, he might not appeal to them.

[BWFC_Insane]

I find it bewildering that a man who Christ even I might vote for is being disregarded by Tory members for an empty bag of wind, propelled in the breeze by some incredibly dangerous sorts behind her. It’s shocking, really shocking.

See, that bit, I could see why, if he half appeals to you, he might not appeal to them.

But traditional conservatism has been about relatively competent people being a bit hard and calculating and leaving some folks in dire straits whilst turning the other way.

Yet the new brand of conservatism seems to be leaving everyone bar a tiny minority in the dirt, dividing the nation up, with barrel loads of incompetence and corruption and personal gain along the way.

They’ve almost always been the party that tacks to the centre when in doubt. I’ve no idea how they have quite managed to end up here. Guess the infiltration by the Brexit party members was true.

[Worthy4England]

^^ You don't recall Harry Enfield playing "Loadsa Money" in the 80's?

[BWFC_Insane]

^^ You don't recall Harry Enfield playing "Loadsa Money" in the 80's?

Yeah but that’s traditional conservatism. This isn’t ‘loadsa money’ more like ‘loadsa bollox’.

[Hoboh]

I know I keep banging this drum but if we were self sufficient in our energy than inflation would be manageable, fuel and energy costs are the main driving force here. Let down over decades by all political parties is the main problem.

[BWFC_Insane]

I know I keep banging this drum but if we were self sufficient in our energy than inflation would be manageable, fuel and energy costs are the main driving force here. Let down over decades by all political parties is the main problem.

If we had nationalised our energy companies as they have in France we’d be able to keep prices lower. And reduce inflation.

Another thing to blame Thatcher for - the lie that privatisation is a golden ticket. It’s a mixed bag. We are seeing the massive downsides of reliance on a free market now as we give big profits to French government owned energy firms.

[Hoboh]

I know I keep banging this drum but if we were self sufficient in our energy than inflation would be manageable, fuel and energy costs are the main driving force here. Let down over decades by all political parties is the main problem.

If we had nationalised our energy companies as they have in France we’d be able to keep prices lower. And reduce inflation.

Another thing to blame Thatcher for - the lie that privatisation is a golden ticket. It’s a mixed bag. We are seeing the massive downsides of reliance on a free market now as we give big profits to French government owned energy firms.

You won't find me arguing against nationalised utility and energy companies.
There is another very dark side that needs sorting as well, the amount of involvement of private companies in our armed forces from catering to running training grounds as well as a whole host of other things.
I was never really bothered about a few things like telecoms, post office and the railways but on reflection I will hold my hand up and say the railways was a mistake, the Unions still take the p*as private or public.

[TANGODANCER]

I was never really bothered about a few things like telecoms, post office and the railways but on reflection I will hold my hand up and say the railways was a mistake, the Unions still take the p*as private or public.

An euology in A Minor"

The whole privatisation thing, in a " wise after the event" error and, as we gingerly close the door on an empty stable, was a political pipe dream of massive cockupsery (new one for the Oxford) . We (in the shape of those we chose as leaders) happily joined Judith Durham and jumped on the Morningtown Ride, to nowhere to later see as just clouds of smoke that disappeared like Trevithick and Stepenson's dream of steam, evaporated into the smog-free sky. Leaping onto the unknown train can have two results" First Class" very soon sold-out to the upper-crust "get rich quick" visionaries, or, Economy goods and cattle waggons" Dickensionery blue-collar tail-enders.(Commonly knows as "The Working Class") As ever, Parliament voted wrongly. No whistle and flag stationmasters now, they all have mobile phones and can say "thank you, delays, cancellations and apologise and working from home" in half-a-dozen languages.

English we jolly well are, but "Made in England" is reserved mainly for meat pies, pasties and H.P.Sauce (believe it or not, named after the Houses of Parliament, I lie not) I have a Bolton Wanderers scarf somewhere with a "made in China"tag on it.

Rule Britannia (we still spell that the Latin way) chaps.. Have a nice day....er,

[Worthy4England]

Just for the record, we (as in I) never chose them as leaders.

Privatisation promised a number of things - great (and better) services, savings for the government (so ultimately us) and an investment boom. They've pretty much delivered on none of them. What they've done is make a small group of investors - quite a lot of whom are overseas - very rich. People who said it wasn't so at the time, were often branded "militants" and "communists" - sound familiar?

If we look at rail - it was sold, as with other privatizations, on the basis that there would be better services, savings for the government, and an investment boom. The services are largely shit and cramped, the government has saved some money, albeit (they/we) still subsidise rail (whilst they're making shit-loads of profits), and the investment isn't driven by "need for investment" but by how much profit needs to be made.

In 1981 the Manchester to London ticket was £19.81. Adjusting for inflation, that would be £84.40 today. The current standard single fare is £160. So we sold them, subsidize them and in return they charge us double what inflation would've done to the price in the intervening years.

And some hail this a success. Thank fcuk it wasn't a failure.

[Prufrock]

Evergy is a bit more complicated than above. The problem is currently wholesale gas prices, not the privatised supply companies making money. They are all making huge losses and going to the wall. Energy from gas isn't being provided any cheaper in France, it's just the cost is subsidised by the state and socialised (the proper meaning of that word). You can argue that's a good thing (I probably would) though it comes with its own drawbacks.

The main reason energy is cheaper in France is nuclear which has an unfortunately bad press. Given the potential effects of climate change I think there's a decent argument that Chernobyl may be the worst thing that's ever happened, not just for it's effects but the impact on public opinion.

But outside green energies which are still not sufficient to power everything given their issues with intermittent supply and storage, nuclear is by far the safest. Even Fukushima, best estimates are that one person died as a result of the reactor failure. One. All the other deaths were caused by the earthquake which also caused the reactor to go. Meanwhile coal clocks of huge numbers of deaths, and gas still far more. But aren't as sexy.

On privatisation generally, I think markets are broadly excellent things, and that the creation of limited liability arguably humanity's greatest invention. In the vast majority of sectors private is better then public for three main reasons:

1) competition - if you're driven to have to make a better product then your competitors you're going to get better results. See Ladas v Western cars. Who gives a feck if your Lada is rubbish, no-one can buy anything else;
2) failure - if you're product is terrible, you go bust. Limited liability means the owners lives aren't completely ruined (though it still sucks) but bad products are largely weeded out. If you can buy a Mercedes *or* a Lada, bye bye Lads.
3) effeciences - a company employing tens, hundreds or even thousands is more agile, effecient and joined up then a huge state operation. You don't get as much waste or drift or lack of communication.

The issue with lots of privatisation of public services is that at least the first one of those first two conditions doesn't really apply.

Take trains, there's no competition on trains. If Virgin are terrible at running the West coast mainline I can't get a different option. It's no use to me if the East coast mainline is better run, because I'm not going to the east coast. They've tried to use tendering to introduce competition but I don't think you can really introduce it where it doesn't exist. All you get is Avanti running the same trains at the same prices with a different badge.

Utilities - they're too important to fail. So you try to introduce competition in the supply bit, but e govt still has to step in because you can't leave people without power because a company's gamble on wholesale prices goes tits up.

Those public essentials are where privatisation just doesn't work, and we were astronomical amounts of money trying to artificially create the conditions where it will, and all that happens is pally shareholders get rich in the good times and leave it to the govt to pay when it goes wrong.