With green jobs, UK's Labour pursues "radical" plan for power

[billd766]

21 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I wonder how many of Corbyn’s policy proposals you are aware of?

 

You’ve plenty of generalized negative comments and references to ‘past history’ but slim on addressing his actual policy proposals.

 

 

Have you read this?

 

https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/

 

https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/creating-economy-works/#third

 

So far I have found nothing about the cost to the country of borrowing enough to pay for it, nor did I find anywhere that gave the timeline for repaying it all.

 

Try reading it in bed tonight.

 

It will help you sleep.

 

 

[billd766]

20 hours ago, Spidey said:

 

Untrue. We pay them to govern the country judiciously. It's ridiculous to assume that the government hold a referendum before they make a decision.

 

Did Margaret Thatcher hold a referendum before she took us to war with Argentina?

 

Did May hold a referendum before she announced the corporate tax breaks?

 

Did Blair hold a referendum before he declared war on Iraq?

 

Did Brown hold a referendum before he sold the UK gold reserves cheaply?

 

You are correct that we pay them to run the country judiciously. So why not leave them alone and let them do it?

[mommysboy]

29 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

 

Have you read this?

 

https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/

 

https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/creating-economy-works/#third

 

So far I have found nothing about the cost to the country of borrowing enough to pay for it, nor did I find anywhere that gave the timeline for repaying it all.

 

Try reading it in bed tonight.

 

It will help you sleep.

 

 

 

The types of policies Labour espouses really are not anything other than essential given the demands of this century: The Green economy in particular.

 

Nationalisation of the water authority, for instance, would be a money maker/saver for the Exchequer. Scottish Water has gone from strength to strength.  What we currently have is huge profits being paid for by British workers to many overseas investors. And the classic underinvestment that is a stamp of Neo Liberalism.  Meanwhile prices have risen sharply. Nationalisation would come at a pretty price, possibly over market value to compensate overseas investors.

 

I find it difficult to understand why Brexiters who so vehemently demands the right of political and economic sovereignty should be opposed to nationalisation in particular and any measure that is for the UK's benefit.

 

 

[mommysboy]

56 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Did Blair hold a referendum before he declared war on Iraq?

 

Did Brown hold a referendum before he sold the UK gold reserves cheaply?

 

You are correct that we pay them to run the country judiciously. So why not leave them alone and let them do it?

 

Because they are useless! maybe.

[mommysboy]

19 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

I might have agreed with you a while back. But the project for "ever closer union" has been pushed heavily over the last year or two, by Macron and a few others. There will never be a better time.

 

It's slow burn, and we would be leaving in any case.

 

UK has more pressing issues at present.  Brexit is really distracting us from the main issues.

[ivor bigun]

 
Because they are useless! maybe.

Beat me to it,i was going to use something stronger than usless though

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[billd766]

6 hours ago, mommysboy said:

 

The types of policies Labour espouses really are not anything other than essential given the demands of this century: The Green economy in particular.

 

Nationalisation of the water authority, for instance, would be a money maker/saver for the Exchequer. Scottish Water has gone from strength to strength.  What we currently have is huge profits being paid for by British workers to many overseas investors. And the classic underinvestment that is a stamp of Neo Liberalism.  Meanwhile prices have risen sharply. Nationalisation would come at a pretty price, possibly over market value to compensate overseas investors.

 

I find it difficult to understand why Brexiters who so vehemently demands the right of political and economic sovereignty should be opposed to nationalisation in particular and any measure that is for the UK's benefit.

 

 

 

 

Whilst I think it is a good idea that services such as gas, water, electricity, mobile phones, broadband, the railway network etc remain in the hands of the UK, I don't agree that they should be paid for by the government nor remain under government control.

 

Who will pay the bill for this, and where will the Labour party borrow the money from? The taxpayer as usual will have to pay the bill whatever it is.

 

Margaret Thatcher nailed it down years ago with this quote which is still true today.

 

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/138248-the-problem-with-socialism-is-that-you-eventually-run-out of others peoples money

 

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

 

I can remember the bad old days when the unions reigned supreme and dictated policy to the Labour government. I remember the winter of discontents when trash was not collected, bodies were not buried, petrol stations were not refuelled, firemen were on strike etc.

 

Labour were the party in power at all those times and the UK was in chaos. I remember when the green goddesses were taken to fires, manned by scratch army, navy and RAF crews escorted by the police as they had no real idea of where to go.

 

When fuel tankers were driven by military crews.

 

To the younger members this may sound a bit like project fear but to many of us older members it was project reality.

 

The Labour party and the unions then, are not that much different than the Labour party and the unions of today.

[billd766]

6 hours ago, mommysboy said:

 

Because they are useless! maybe.

 

Then vote them out at the the next general election.

 

Democracy in action.

[mommysboy]

2 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

 

Whilst I think it is a good idea that services such as gas, water, electricity, mobile phones, broadband, the railway network etc remain in the hands of the UK, I don't agree that they should be paid for by the government nor remain under government control.

 

Who will pay the bill for this, and where will the Labour party borrow the money from? The taxpayer as usual will have to pay the bill whatever it is.

 

Margaret Thatcher nailed it down years ago with this quote which is still true today.

 

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/138248-the-problem-with-socialism-is-that-you-eventually-run-out of others peoples money

 

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

 

I can remember the bad old days when the unions reigned supreme and dictated policy to the Labour government. I remember the winter of discontents when trash was not collected, bodies were not buried, petrol stations were not refuelled, firemen were on strike etc.

 

Labour were the party in power at all those times and the UK was in chaos. I remember when the green goddesses were taken to fires, manned by scratch army, navy and RAF crews escorted by the police as they had no real idea of where to go.

 

When fuel tankers were driven by military crews.

 

To the younger members this may sound a bit like project fear but to many of us older members it was project reality.

 

The Labour party and the unions then, are not that much different than the Labour party and the unions of today.

 

It was a mess with the unions in the 70's.  They were hell for both parties.  It was also a time when a lot of private companies were a joke.  So to hold one to account is surely to hold the other.

 

Could I say that currently democracy is keeping the far right in check (another project reality), and it would do so if the far left ever behave in such a poor manner. 

 

Nationalisation of the water company would be achieved by bond issues to shareholders-a greedy bunch of financiers, hedge funds, and the like.  Yes the taxpayer shells out, but gets a prime asset with rolling funds, and high profits. Scottish water is being run in a responsible way.

 

Carillion, a company, folded leaving the tax payer on the hook for 2 billion upwards. It was manged disgracefully.  Also look at some of the rail companies, which are also run by private concessions.  Hence, the simple assumption that privatisation is good, and nationalisation is bad doesn't really hold water any longer.  It did for a while.

 

It's not entirely project fear but I do think you are simply a dyed in the wool Tory.  So, there it is then, we go to all the bother of Brexit but it's a cosmetic change only!

 

 

 

 

Edited September 28, 2018 by mommysboy

[bert bloggs]

11 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

Then vote them out at the the next general election.

 

Democracy in action.

Trouble is if we vote them out ,we get Corbyn ,ten times more useless.

[vogie]

52 minutes ago, bert bloggs said:

Trouble is if we vote them out ,we get Corbyn ,ten times more useless.

I disagree, Corbyn is worse than useless.

[nauseus]

9 hours ago, mommysboy said:

 

It was a mess with the unions in the 70's.  They were hell for both parties.  It was also a time when a lot of private companies were a joke.  So to hold one to account is surely to hold the other.

 

Could I say that currently democracy is keeping the far right in check (another project reality), and it would do so if the far left ever behave in such a poor manner. 

 

Nationalisation of the water company would be achieved by bond issues to shareholders-a greedy bunch of financiers, hedge funds, and the like.  Yes the taxpayer shells out, but gets a prime asset with rolling funds, and high profits. Scottish water is being run in a responsible way.

 

Carillion, a company, folded leaving the tax payer on the hook for 2 billion upwards. It was manged disgracefully.  Also look at some of the rail companies, which are also run by private concessions.  Hence, the simple assumption that privatisation is good, and nationalisation is bad doesn't really hold water any longer.  It did for a while.

 

It's not entirely project fear but I do think you are simply a dyed in the wool Tory.  So, there it is then, we go to all the bother of Brexit but it's a cosmetic change only!

 

 

 

 

 

You are confusing Brexit with domestic problems of critical service ownership and poor management. 

[mommysboy]

4 hours ago, bert bloggs said:

Trouble is if we vote them out ,we get Corbyn ,ten times more useless.

 

That's the same old cliche- it was said of Blair I believe.

 

Easily countered by what is glaringly obvious: this Government is useless.

 

Now if you'd have said dangerous/risky, you could have a point.

[mommysboy]

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

You are confusing Brexit with domestic problems of critical service ownership and poor management. 

 

Am I?

 

I think the key with any ownership of utilities is regulation and accountability.

 

There's an emotional aspect: any Brit should be able to walk around with a sense of civic pride- a sense of owning and belonging.

[nauseus]

33 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

Am I?

 

I think the key with any ownership of utilities is regulation and accountability.

 

There's an emotional aspect: any Brit should be able to walk around with a sense of civic pride- a sense of owning and belonging.

 

So how do you associate Brexit with these things?

[aright]

On ‎9‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 10:20 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

I wonder how many of Corbyn’s policy proposals you are aware of?

 

You’ve plenty of generalized negative comments and references to ‘past history’ but slim on addressing his actual policy proposals.

When it comes to negative comments and a brave new world it's a bit like Brexit isn't it and probably more expensive. Policy proposals which aren't fully costed live in fantasy land ?   

[aright]

I watched most of the Labour Conference paying special attention to Corbyn's closing speech  which was different in the sense there was , standing ovations and frenzied and frequent applause and an "Oh Jeremy Corbyn" sing along. His support was almost cult like; an audience so spellbound by his aura they seemed to have been robbed of their expository faculties and common sense.

I was reminded of the reaction of the North Koreans when Kim Jong-un gives a speech.

 

 

 

[Kiwiken]

On 9/26/2018 at 10:21 AM, dunroaming said:

For Labour to win an election they first need to dump Corbyn.  After that then I think, due to the mess the Tories are in, they could be a contender.  Although Corbyn has a good following of Labour supporters, the majority of voters out there don't think he would make an effective PM.  Just my opinion.

 

In the meantime a Labour MP (Laura Smith) has today stood up at conference and called for a general strike to bring the government down if no general election is called.  That shows just how clueless some of the Labour MPs really are.

Your Labour party needs a Media Savvy leader like NZ's Jacinda Adern but most of all what we really need is true Democracy