[Politics] The General Election Thread

[schmunk]

Really? Pray, enlighten us. I worked at the CPS until I retired.

You probably worked for my mother-in-law...

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

By your definition, so far has the Overton window swung to the right that you would need to include in your definition of hard left leader every post war prime minister up to Thatcher including Attlee, Wilson, |Heath and especially that well known Trot, Harold Macmillan. So in your view once the NHS is privatised would it be "hard left" to propose re-nationalising it?

No of course not. Times change.

By hard lefter I mean someone who has never been as happy as she/he is now, because Corbyn is labour leader. The sort of person who thinks of Blair as a traitor. The sort of person who is convinced labour will win today. The sort of person who will blame the electorate and the manipulative tory media if Corbyn loses. The sort of person who will hope Corbyn carries on as labour leader even if he loses because it is inevitable the people will eventually come to their senses and vote him in. The sort of person who, actually, does not regard winning the general election as the most important issue today (the education of the masses being the most important issue). The sort of person who favours the deselection of labour candidates who do not back momentum.

And of course it won't be hard left to renationalise the NHS if it is sold off. It won't even be hard left to renationalise the railways. It will, however, be tricky because it would be illegal to renationalise the railways without paying the going rate. The government can't simply appropriate goods on a whim, like the Chinese do. For that reason renationalisation of the railways might be impossible. There is a world of difference between bailing out an industry on the brink of bankruptcy (old school nationalisation) and forcibly appropriating a going concern.

Also, if the NHS is sold off, and labour don't get back in for 5, or 10, or 15 years, it may then be impossible to renationalise it for the same reasons of cost. It would be possible as appropriation only if the NHS had been asset stripped in contravention of the laws surrounding provision of health care (albeit Boris could change the laws - and he might).

For renationalisation (as opposed to nationalisation to bail out a failing concern) the stable door is a good analogy here. Even Corbyn understands the stable door - this is why labour are not proposing to forcibly renationalise ex-council houses, even though it is equally as defensible as renationalising the railways, or the NHS, from the perspective of (hard left) doctrine.

And please don't throw MacMillan at me. The times change. The post war concensus meant that even the tories were largely content that huge swathes of UK industry and service was state owned in the 50s and 60s. It was Thatcher who changed all that (driven by doctrine - unconcerned whether the national assets flogged off at cut price were a success or went down the shitter like the coal industry, and unconcerned whether the effect was creation of market competition, or a private monopoly with a licence to print money, like BT and British gas were for a long while, and permitted to proceed by the electorate owing to the opportunity to make easy cash, Sid).

Times change. The hard left are stuck in the past. A past that no longer exists (because it is the past).

 

[vegster]

iirc roaming charges were determined by the receiving network, and most across Europe set horrendous rates (also for landlines). Vodafone were one of the first to greatly reduce or scrap roaming fees due to their global reach (terminating with themselves in other countries).
as for phone and line contract, there was no separation until recently, the business model giving cheap phones relied on long running contracts.
Openreach is an mess of an organisation.

Hardly a glowing reference for the telecoms industry then ? Openreach are in fact the end inheritor of the telecoms network infrastructure but are stuck with the old problem of reluctance to invest as a necessity of having to pay dividends to shareholders.

 

[DIFFBROOK]

Actually, it wouldn't be that difficult to nationalise the railways - you just let contracts run out and it doesn't cost a bean. East Coast rail line being an example. Virgin couldn't make it work, so at end of contract it automatically goes back to public control.

No of course not. Times change.

By hard lefter I mean someone who has never been as happy as she/he is now, because Corbyn is labour leader. The sort of person who thinks of Blair as a traitor. The sort of person who is convinced labour will win today. The sort of person who will blame the electorate and the manipulative tory media if Corbyn loses. The sort of person who will hope Corbyn carries on as labour leader even if he loses because it is inevitable the people will eventually come to their senses and vote him in. The sort of person who, actually, does not regard winning the general election as the most important issue today (the education of the masses being the most important issue). The sort of person who favours the deselection of labour candidates who do not back momentum.

And of course it won't be hard left to renationalise the NHS if it is sold off. It won't even be hard left to renationalise the railways. It will, however, be tricky because it would be illegal to renationalise the railways without paying the going rate. The government can't simply appropriate goods on a whim, like the Chinese do. For that reason renationalisation of the railways might be impossible. There is a world of difference between bailing out an industry on the brink of bankruptcy (old school nationalisation) and forcibly appropriating a going concern.

Also, if the NHS is sold off, and labour don't get back in for 5, or 10, or 15 years, it may then be impossible to renationalise it for the same reasons of cost. It would be possible as appropriation only if the NHS had been asset stripped in contravention of the laws surrounding provision of health care (albeit Boris could change the laws - and he might).

For renationalisation (as opposed to nationalisation to bail out a failing concern) the stable door is a good analogy here. Even Corbyn understands the stable door - this is why labour are not proposing to forcibly renationalise ex-council houses, even though it is equally as defensible as renationalising the railways, or the NHS, from the perspective of (hard left) doctrine.

And please don't throw MacMillan at me. The times change. The post war concensus meant that even the tories were largely content that huge swathes of UK industry and service was state owned in the 50s and 60s. It was Thatcher who changed all that (driven by doctrine - unconcerned whether the national assets flogged off at cut price were a success or went down the shitter like the coal industry, and unconcerned whether the effect was creation of market competition, or a private monopoly with a licence to print money, like BT and British gas were for a long while, and permitted to proceed by the electorate owing to the opportunity to make easy cash, Sid).

Times change. The hard left are stuck in the past. A past that no longer exists (because it is the past).

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Hardly a glowing reference for the telecoms industry then ? Openreach are in fact the end inheritor of the telecoms network infrastructure but are stuck with the old problem of reluctance to invest as a necessity of having to pay dividends to shareholders.

And I forgot to throw in, the business fibre network is rapidly being extended by Openreach, Virgin and a handful of other operators - partly funded by them and partly funded by the taxpayer via the government.

 

[Guinness Boy]

No of course not. Times change.

By hard lefter I mean someone who has never been as happy as she/he is now, because Corbyn is labour leader. The sort of person who thinks of Blair as a traitor. The sort of person who is convinced labour will win today. The sort of person who will blame the electorate and the manipulative tory media if Corbyn loses. The sort of person who will hope Corbyn carries on as labour leader even if he loses because it is inevitable the people will eventually come to their senses and vote him in. The sort of person who, actually, does not regard winning the general election as the most important issue today (the education of the masses being the most important issue). The sort of person who favours the deselection of labour candidates who do not back momentum.

You're describing [MENTION=33329]Jolly Red Giant[/MENTION] there - except of course, he blames an electorate he's not part of.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

In the end, the sheer BRITISHNESS of the political process at election time has to be, like the NHS, the envy of the world. Despite the stakes, it always plays out like pure parish pump politics. May it continue forever.

 

[vegster]

No of course not. Times change.

By hard lefter I mean someone who has never been as happy as she/he is now, because Corbyn is labour leader. The sort of person who thinks of Blair as a traitor. The sort of person who is convinced labour will win today. The sort of person who will blame the electorate and the manipulative tory media if Corbyn loses. The sort of person who will hope Corbyn carries on as labour leader even if he loses because it is inevitable the people will eventually come to their senses and vote him in. The sort of person who, actually, does not regard winning the general election as the most important issue today (the education of the masses being the most important issue). The sort of person who favours the deselection of labour candidates who do not back momentum.

And of course it won't be hard left to renationalise the NHS if it is sold off. It won't even be hard left to renationalise the railways. It will, however, be tricky because it would be illegal to renationalise the railways without paying the going rate. The government can't simply appropriate goods on a whim, like the Chinese do. For that reason renationalisation of the railways might be impossible. There is a world of difference between bailing out an industry on the brink of bankruptcy (old school nationalisation) and forcibly appropriating a going concern.

Also, if the NHS is sold off, and labour don't get back in for 5, or 10, or 15 years, it may then be impossible to renationalise it for the same reasons of cost. It would be possible as appropriation only if the NHS had been asset stripped in contravention of the laws surrounding provision of health care (albeit Boris could change the laws - and he might).

For renationalisation (as opposed to nationalisation to bail out a failing concern) the stable door is a good analogy here. Even Corbyn understands the stable door - this is why labour are not proposing to forcibly renationalise ex-council houses, even though it is equally as defensible as renationalising the railways, or the NHS, from the perspective of (hard left) doctrine.

And please don't throw MacMillan at me. The times change. The post war concensus meant that even the tories were largely content that huge swathes of UK industry and service was state owned in the 50s and 60s. It was Thatcher who changed all that (driven by doctrine - unconcerned whether the national assets flogged off at cut price were a success or went down the shitter like the coal industry, and unconcerned whether the effect was creation of market competition, or a private monopoly with a licence to print money, like BT and British gas were for a long while, and permitted to proceed by the electorate owing to the opportunity to make easy cash, Sid).

Times change. The hard left are stuck in the past. A past that no longer exists (because it is the past).

I would have to disagree with some of that HWT, Corbyn is almost certainly not going to see out a full term of parliament even if he wins today, time is genuinely against him because of his age. I for one am not voting for Corbyn per se but for what he and the Labour Party stand for, a fairer society. If/when he loses the media will have been a massive influence on the result as you well know. Yesterdays news ( not widely reported ) that 88% of paid Tory adverts on Facebook were factually incorrect is a glaring example of this influence.

But, referring to the re-nationalisation of the railways, a simple solution is not to renew the current rail franchises as they come up for renewal, that way regional areas are taken back " In-House " over period of time and not in one fell swoop. It is possible to do and should be done, you and I both come from a time when you could arrive at a station and buy a ticket for anywhere in the UK and once you did, the network then did it's level best to get you there. None of this " Tickets valid for certain services only " stuff, each change of train got you closer to where you needed to be.

 

[vegster]

Actually, it wouldn't be that difficult to nationalise the railways - you just let contracts run out and it doesn't cost a bean. East Coast rail line being an example. Virgin couldn't make it work, so at end of contract it automatically goes back to public control.

This ! you beat me to it !

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Strange example, the privatisation of BT is precisely the reason why we have such a shocking fibre network. Wherever you have a national infrastructure challenge, 'competition' doesn't work. Power, railways, telecoms etc.....

I don't see how you can say that. My experience is the phones were a joke before privatisation (weeks to get a line connected if you moved flat). But they were also joke for different reasons after privatisation - my BT bills were insanely high when BT was a private monopoly. Now that we have competition for phone line provision the costs are tiny. 'Win', shirley?

So, can you name me a nation with one nationalised phone company that has fantastic fibre network and low charges to the customer? I'm sure there will be one; possibly Belgium? The exception rather than the rule?

Certainly I hated it that Thatcher initially sold privatisation as a means of getting shitty (possibly unprofitable) industries that were a hotbed of socialism (steel, coal, rail) off the back of the nation, and their union leaders off our televisions, and also sold it as a chance for individuals to make unprecedented windfall profits buy buying and selling shares in profitable nationalised monopolies. The first justification was vindictive (like closing down County Hall when Livingstone was first in charge), and the second was immoral (basically mis-using public assets to buy votes). Neither were the prevailing underlying reason, of course. That was to destroy socialism forever, no more no less. Arguably it worked.

But my point is that although there are all sorts of problems with Thatcher's privaisations (as I noted above) this doesn't mean you can make sweeping generalisations about cause and effect when multiple factors are at work. You cite power, railways, telecoms, etc. I would argue that power works just fine now - lots of competition and costs are lower. Trains, I agree that these are a mess - on my line we have repeated episodes of 3 carriages instead of 6 and 'no working toilet' and incredible price hikes - much worse than they were when I started commuting 30 years ago. Telecoms? Much better as noted above. British Airways? Much better and cheaper but arguably this would have happened anyway. Different outcomes....as one might expect when you consider the way privatisations occurred, and the prevailing underlying reason.

Bottom line is it is impossible to tell whether the changes for good and bad that have occured after privatisations are the result of privatisation or not. As we say in biomedical research, there is no time-matched control group.

 

[theonlymikey]

Labour.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I would have to disagree with some of that HWT, Corbyn is almost certainly not going to see out a full term of parliament even if he wins today, time is genuinely against him because of his age. I for one am not voting for Corbyn per se but for what he and the Labour Party stand for, a fairer society. If/when he loses the media will have been a massive influence on the result as you well know. Yesterdays news ( not widely reported ) that 88% of paid Tory adverts on Facebook were factually incorrect is a glaring example of this influence.

But, referring to the re-nationalisation of the railways, a simple solution is not to renew the current rail franchises as they come up for renewal, that way regional areas are taken back " In-House " over period of time and not in one fell swoop. It is possible to do and should be done, you and I both come from a time when you could arrive at a station and buy a ticket for anywhere in the UK and once you did, the network then did it's level best to get you there. None of this " Tickets valid for certain services only " stuff, each change of train got you closer to where you needed to be.

Good point about the railways. Although....didn't Prestcott realise it would be too expensive when he looked into it? I presume that was a one fell swoop job, and then Blair decided he'd not bother? I rather like your plan, though. Were I to carry on commuting to work for another 20 years (into my 80s) I might start to see the benefit.

In other news....despite my dispair about Corbyn, if he does stand down soon he may be remebered as a decent guy who tried and failed, heart in the right place....

But he seems fit as a fiddle to me.

Also, why would he stand down, allowing the labour MPs to seize control again? They certainly won't be giving 50 signatures to put a token lefty on the ballot again!

No, I see Corbyn using his membership support to push through constitutional change to allow the membership to nominate as well as elect the leader. With that labour will end up with momentum forever, and will never again form a government....

 

[lawros left foot]

Large turnout being reported in lots of places, good thing or a bad thing?

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Large turnout being reported in lots of places, good thing or a bad thing?

Always a good thing.

 

[nicko31]

Large turnout being reported in lots of places, good thing or a bad thing?

Depends on the age demographic I guess...

 

[A1X]

Large turnout being reported in lots of places, good thing or a bad thing?

Largely depends where. Reports it's big in Lincoln, Canterbury and Putney, which are all key marginals.

 

[Deleted member 2719]

Even if you don't like Boris, you can't make Dilyn homeless for Christmas.

 

[A1X]

Even if you don't like Boris, you can't make Dilyn homeless for Christmas.

I'd rather Dilyn was homeless this Christmas than the 131,000 children who were last Christmas (according to Shelter) thanks to the Tories.

 

[Lever]

Even if you don't like Boris, you can't make Dilyn homeless for Christmas.

....even though his master's party has done that to hundreds if not thousands of people?

 

[Lever]

I'd rather Dilyn was homeless this Christmas than the 131,000 children who were last Christmas (according to Shelter) thanks to the Tories.

You beat me to it; I really love dogs but this is the unacceptable level of unconcern for humans shown by the 'I'm all right, Jack' right wing influencers.