The Politics Thread

[Prufrock]

Ah, nice. Have it public, but make it run at a profit, like a *private* company. That's golden. I can't believe it's taken the human race this long to come up with that idea. Now you've said it it seems so simple.

[BWFC_Insane]

The structure can be copied and there are markets with which to compare

What structure? And what markets?

[Montreal Wanderer]

Ah, nice. Have it public, but make it run at a profit, like a *private* company. That's golden. I can't believe it's taken the human race this long to come up with that idea. Now you've said it it seems so simple.

I must confess to a little confusion about the sarcasm here - or what precisely it was aimed at. When I lived in England Labour governments would nationalize things and Conservative governments would re-privatize some like, I think, British Steel. The nationalized institutions always (or eventually) ran at a loss. So there may not be a history of profit making in nationalized industries and services. However, that is not the case over here. For example, our provincial government has the monopoly on provision of electricity through Hydro Quebec. Although they sell electricity at a loss to a few US states. they do make a largish profit by charging us more than they charge the Yanks per kilowatt hour.

Anyway, Pru, I'm a little confused about the direction of your shot. It may of course be pretty obvious to everyone else.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Maybe somebody who knows could enlighten me. In my enfeebled state over the last week, I've watched a lot of TV, most of it 'news'.
I'm just wondering whether there's something political re the fact that two major Muslims who aren't really Muslims deliberately slaughtering non-Muslims events have unfolded before us, and yet the 80 Christian Pakistanis, who were slaughtered by Pakistani Muslims-who-aren't-really-Muslims, got about ten seconds of airtime, whereas the 70? odd non-Muslims who were slaughtered by the Muslims-who-are-not-really-Muslims in Nairobi got hours and hours of airtime. Why?
Not, why did the Muslims-who-are-not-Muslims do it. I know that, that's fxclung obvious. I mean, why only ten seconds for the 80 versus the hours for the 70?

I only asked because the bloke opposite in the corner bed is an elderly Nigerian who has lost three members of his immediate family, two daughters and his great-grandchild, in a raid by Boko Haram, on a Christian village in northern Nigeria, that took place two days prior to the Kenyan shit, and he, like me, is wondering why, despite a confirmed total of at least 300 Nigerian Christians slaughtered by Muslims-who-are-not-Muslims, not a single second of this tragedy has been broadcast on British TV. There's got yo be a reason surely, a political one no doubt?
No?
Or are we at the point of total refutation. Seems like it to me.

[Hoboh]

Ah, nice. Have it public, but make it run at a profit, like a *private* company. That's golden. I can't believe it's taken the human race this long to come up with that idea. Now you've said it it seems so simple.

I think you will find that letting politicians and commitees run the show along with our good friends the TUC was the biggest problem here just as it is with the NHS.
Don't lose sight of the fact it would be a nationalised power utility company not nationalise everything because these are vital to the countries sucess or failiure, private companies only have increased profits as their target not the good of the country.
To make this work you would need political consensus to lay out the aims and targets then let an appointed 'expert' board run the show.
I take it most want HS2 then rather than power stations?

[Hoboh]

Maybe somebody who knows could enlighten me. In my enfeebled state over the last week, I've watched a lot of TV, most of it 'news'.
I'm just wondering whether there's something political re the fact that two major Muslims who aren't really Muslims deliberately slaughtering non-Muslims events have unfolded before us, and yet the 80 Christian Pakistanis, who were slaughtered by Pakistani Muslims-who-aren't-really-Muslims, got about ten seconds of airtime, whereas the 70? odd non-Muslims who were slaughtered by the Muslims-who-are-not-really-Muslims in Nairobi got hours and hours of airtime. Why?
Not, why did the Muslims-who-are-not-Muslims do it. I know that, that's fxclung obvious. I mean, why only ten seconds for the 80 versus the hours for the 70?

I only asked because the bloke opposite in the corner bed is an elderly Nigerian who has lost three members of his immediate family, two daughters and his great-grandchild, in a raid by Boko Haram, on a Christian village in northern Nigeria, that took place two days prior to the Kenyan shit, and he, like me, is wondering why, despite a confirmed total of at least 300 Nigerian Christians slaughtered by Muslims-who-are-not-Muslims, not a single second of this tragedy has been broadcast on British TV. There's got yo be a reason surely, a political one no doubt?
No?
Or are we at the point of total refutation. Seems like it to me.

There is but I doubt anyone has a clue what it is, even the 'loons' carrying out these atrocities.
If it was known there could possibly be a solution.

[Hoboh]

Ah, nice. Have it public, but make it run at a profit, like a *private* company. That's golden. I can't believe it's taken the human race this long to come up with that idea. Now you've said it it seems so simple.

I must confess to a little confusion about the sarcasm here - or what precisely it was aimed at. When I lived in England Labour governments would nationalize things and Conservative governments would re-privatize some like, I think, British Steel. The nationalized institutions always (or eventually) ran at a loss. So there may not be a history of profit making in nationalized industries and services. However, that is not the case over here. For example, our provincial government has the monopoly on provision of electricity through Hydro Quebec. Although they sell electricity at a loss to a few US states. they do make a largish profit by charging us more than they charge the Yanks per kilowatt hour.

Anyway, Pru, I'm a little confused about the direction of your shot. It may of course be pretty obvious to everyone else.

Thanks Monty most over here are blinkered by Brithish Leyland, the National Coal Board and anything else that had Union interference.

[Bruce Rioja]

Don't lose sight of the fact it would be a nationalised power utility company not nationalise everything because these are vital to the countries sucess or failiure, private companies only have increased profits as their target not the good of the country.
To make this work you would need political consensus to lay out the aims and targets then let an appointed 'expert' board run the show.
I take it most want HS2 then rather than power stations?

Interesting, Hoboh. I'm not sure that you can simply turn round to Veolia and the likes and tell them that we're having their power stations off of them though. If we are to build more power stations can I ask you for your preferred method of firing the boilers?

[Montreal Wanderer]

Don't lose sight of the fact it would be a nationalised power utility company not nationalise everything because these are vital to the countries sucess or failiure, private companies only have increased profits as their target not the good of the country.
To make this work you would need political consensus to lay out the aims and targets then let an appointed 'expert' board run the show.
I take it most want HS2 then rather than power stations?

Interesting, Hoboh. I'm not sure that you can simply turn round to Veolia and the likes and tell them that we're having their power stations off of them though. If we are to build more power stations can I ask you for your preferred method of firing the boilers?

What are your choices? Coal or nuclear? Downside to both I fear (they even put Crazy Horse in charge of then). In Quebec we choose to go the hydro route because it was easy enough to flood an area the size of England to drive the turbines ( a little compensation to the native Americans up there. Our last (only) nuclear power station, Gentilly, was closed last year - though it will take 50 years to decommission. Ontario however has a lot of nuclear power. We have a few coal fired power stations - 7 in Alberta, 3 in Saskatchewan, 1 in Manitoba, 6 in Ontario, 2 in New Brunswick, 4 in Nova Scotia and None in British Columbia, Quebec and Newfoundland. The arguments still rage about which does the least damage - hydro power changes the ecology of vast areas, nuclear power produces nasty by-product which can stick around for 40,000 years and sometimes goes bang, while coal pollutes the air and is not a renewable resource.

[Hoboh]

Don't lose sight of the fact it would be a nationalised power utility company not nationalise everything because these are vital to the countries sucess or failiure, private companies only have increased profits as their target not the good of the country.
To make this work you would need political consensus to lay out the aims and targets then let an appointed 'expert' board run the show.
I take it most want HS2 then rather than power stations?

Interesting, Hoboh. I'm not sure that you can simply turn round to Veolia and the likes and tell them that we're having their power stations off of them though. If we are to build more power stations can I ask you for your preferred method of firing the boilers?

Personally I would go nuke and believe that within a 25-30 year span of a powerstation if a decent R&D was setup (more hi-tech jobs by the way ) the chances are a viable way of decommisioning them may be available, no guarentee of coarse but 30 years ago who'd believe what we have and can do now? As Monty states other options all have their drawbacks but IMHO power stations are of a far better use than some railway line that by the time its built and finished will more than likley be obsolete and of no use except to the next generation anoracks or rail museums.

[Bruce Rioja]

Don't lose sight of the fact it would be a nationalised power utility company not nationalise everything because these are vital to the countries sucess or failiure, private companies only have increased profits as their target not the good of the country.
To make this work you would need political consensus to lay out the aims and targets then let an appointed 'expert' board run the show.
I take it most want HS2 then rather than power stations?

Interesting, Hoboh. I'm not sure that you can simply turn round to Veolia and the likes and tell them that we're having their power stations off of them though. If we are to build more power stations can I ask you for your preferred method of firing the boilers?

Personally I would go nuke and believe that within a 25-30 year span of a powerstation if a decent R&D was setup (more hi-tech jobs by the way ) the chances are a viable way of decommisioning them may be available, no guarentee of coarse but 30 years ago who'd believe what we have and can do now? As Monty states other options all have their drawbacks but IMHO power stations are of a far better use than some railway line that by the time its built and finished will more than likley be obsolete and of no use except to the next generation anoracks or rail museums.

Not waste to energy then? Shirley it's the most obvious source?! We're years behind other countries on this, so much so that I feel it's a national embarrassment. Personally I wouldn't be bothering with HS2 anyway; power stations or no.

EDIT: As an aside, there's a Top Tip in this week's Viz - London Businessmen: Save the government billions of pounds building a high speed rail link to Birmingham by arranging your meetings in Birmingham 20 minutes later.

[thebish]

YAY!! at last - free public transport in the North West for those who really need it!

All delegates at the Conservative party conference in Manchester will get free tram, train and bus travel throughout the region. They will be allowed to travel for free on public transport for the duration of next week’s conference – despite most being based in hotels close to the Manchester Central venue.

[Athers]

There are already free buses in town mind.

It's good for Manchester to have big events like this and can see why it appeals - a city of importance not in Tory heartland and the restaurants and hotels are decent, but it is a shame they don't hold the conferences in places like Blackpool anymore. The poor buggars need it more.

[Worthy4England]

As an aside, there's a Top Tip in this week's Viz - London Businessmen: Save the government billions of pounds building a high speed rail link to Birmingham by arranging your meetings in Birmingham 20 minutes later.

[thebish]

Osborne's plan to make the long-term unemployed work for their benefits... (or attend job centre daily - or go for rehab or summat)

my guess is it will be massively popular, BUT... beyond the headline, how does it actually work in practice?

1) attending the job centre daily. what does that achieve? it's already pretty much a tick-box visit - is attending the job centre a punishment of some kind? how does that square with the idea that the job centre is supposed to be a positive force helping people back into work? also - won't that mean the job centre staff are overworked? will we be employing more job centre staff to deal with the extra work??

2) going for rehab. - sounds great - and maybe for some - just the kick in the pants they need - especially if it is funded for them (who will pay?) BUT - most rehab schemes START by saying their treatment only really works if people have reached the place where they recognise they have a problem and seek change themselves... being forced to go seems to be something different - would treatment for an alcoholic forced to go to rehab stand any chance of success?

3) work for benefits - again - doesn't sound THAT outrageous - BUT... what kind of work will this army of "free" employment do? faced with the choice of free workers for street-cleaning - why would local authorities pay people to do that? would that not lead to more unemployment... or.. would they be motivated to do a good job? after all - no chance of getting paid more or getting a rise or anything else...

also - do they realy work a 37hr week? if they are working for their benefit - then surely they should only work for as long as the formula hours= benefit received/minimum wage - otherwise they are working for nowt - not working for their benefit..

also - how are the jobs they will do actually organised? surely that takes cash - would that really save money in the long run...

i suspect the idea SOUNDS good and SOUNDS tough - but as ever - we won't here any details and nothing will happen.

[Athers]

I think it all sounds like a way of forcing the unemployed to get out of bed and open the curtains in the morning!

Workfare has and hasn't worked around the world, but the last thing I want to see is these people taking proper jobs away from people on minimum wage at large companies.

I can't see the harm in helping to clear out some old dear's garden and having a write up from someone saying the person was punctual and did a good job. Were I unemployed I wouldn't mind doing a bit of good if I was fit & able. Sounds a little like you could be wearing an orange jumpsuit whilst doing it though!!

"Working" full time is surely out of the question though - it removes the time available to try and find work. Also exempt should be where no childcare is available for the under 4s, plus a load of other things.

[Il Pirate]

Osborne's plan to make the long-term unemployed work for their benefits... (or attend job centre daily - or go for rehab or summat)

my guess is it will be massively popular, BUT... beyond the headline, how does it actually work in practice?

1) attending the job centre daily. what does that achieve? it's already pretty much a tick-box visit - is attending the job centre a punishment of some kind? how does that square with the idea that the job centre is supposed to be a positive force helping people back into work? also - won't that mean the job centre staff are overworked? will we be employing more job centre staff to deal with the extra work??

2) going for rehab. - sounds great - and maybe for some - just the kick in the pants they need - especially if it is funded for them (who will pay?) BUT - most rehab schemes START by saying their treatment only really works if people have reached the place where they recognise they have a problem and seek change themselves... being forced to go seems to be something different - would treatment for an alcoholic forced to go to rehab stand any chance of success?

3) work for benefits - again - doesn't sound THAT outrageous - BUT... what kind of work will this army of "free" employment do? faced with the choice of free workers for street-cleaning - why would local authorities pay people to do that? would that not lead to more unemployment... or.. would they be motivated to do a good job? after all - no chance of getting paid more or getting a rise or anything else...

also - do they realy work a 37hr week? if they are working for their benefit - then surely they should only work for as long as the formula hours= benefit received/minimum wage - otherwise they are working for nowt - not working for their benefit..

also - how are the jobs they will do actually organised? surely that takes cash - would that really save money in the long run...

i suspect the idea SOUNDS good and SOUNDS tough - but as ever - we won't here any details and nothing will happen.

It realy is just another pathetic attempt by the tories to stigmatise people, who, in the main, are unemployed through no fault of their own. Or maybe unemployed through tory policy. Admittedly, there are always going to be folk who do not want to work and have become workshy lazy fecks; maybe they are second/third generation kids whose fathers lost their employment during the last regime of divide and conquer. Also have you seen the tag line at the tory conference? It appeared behind Gideon this morning when he was telling more lies on the breakfast news. 'For Hardworking People'. Fvck off. You've put most of 'em out of work you idiots. And you'll put more out of work by selling off the probation service, the prison service (done by stealth I may add), the national health service and the postal service. Plus anything else which is not nailed down.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Admittedly, there are always going to be folk who do not want to work and have become workshy lazy fecks; maybe they are second/third generation kids whose fathers lost their employment during the last regime of divide and conquer.

Ok, so how would you deal with this lot?

I don't for one second think that they have happy, fulfilled lives, but surely a welfare dependency that allows them to do nothing is the worst of all worlds?

[BWFC_Insane]

Admittedly, there are always going to be folk who do not want to work and have become workshy lazy fecks; maybe they are second/third generation kids whose fathers lost their employment during the last regime of divide and conquer.

Ok, so how would you deal with this lot?

I don't for one second think that they have happy, fulfilled lives, but surely a welfare dependency that allows them to do nothing is the worst of all worlds?

Create actual jobs for them perhaps?

I have no issue in saying "here is a suitable job for you, at a reasonably accessible location and it works around your childcare arrangements etc" take it, or you don't get anymore jobseekers allowance.

But they need to have actually had a reasonable job option presented to them first before we brand them as "workshy layabouts".

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Admittedly, there are always going to be folk who do not want to work and have become workshy lazy fecks; maybe they are second/third generation kids whose fathers lost their employment during the last regime of divide and conquer.

Ok, so how would you deal with this lot?

I don't for one second think that they have happy, fulfilled lives, but surely a welfare dependency that allows them to do nothing is the worst of all worlds?

Create actual jobs for them perhaps?

I have no issue in saying "here is a suitable job for you, at a reasonably accessible location and it works around your childcare arrangements etc" take it, or you don't get anymore jobseekers allowance.

But they need to have actually had a reasonable job option presented to them first before we brand them as "workshy layabouts".

Il Pirate was specifically talking about people who don't want to work, in which case your suggestion would not work, even if we did accept that it is the state's duty to hand people jobs on a plate.