news & politics:discussion

[Neil]

1 hour ago, lost said:

Yes thats the difference. Most people don't use leverage when buying shares but are comfortable doing it when buying property.

Definitely not a one way bet though. I think it was Feral who used to post on here who said a member of her family had a number of BTL's in a mining town and when the mine closed lost the whole portfollio to the bank after a margin call whilst in negative equity.

That's the risk of buying in a one employer town. There'll be some supporter's of Scottish independence punching themselves in the face like that if they ever get their wish.

[kaosmark2]

28 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:

fair comment , would at least like a start . Railways would be the most sensible to me as we seem to be constantly renewing licences anyway . 

Railways, buses, and utility provision all make sense to me to be nationalised. They naturally have a monopoly anyway because of the infrastructure requirements so the general public can't ever get the "benefits" of privatisation/capitalism for them.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

So, back to square 1 you could say?

Sunak comes across so badly whenever he’s out in public, he’s going to be awful in an election campaign. 

Edited January 19 by Ozanne

[stuie]

21 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

Back to blaming the waiting list on junior doctors I see? Absolutely nothing to do with his government.

[steviewevie]

2 hours ago, Crazyfool01 said:

from page 2 of this thread .... how many are relevant now ? 🙂 reading back is quite interesting 🙂 

we've kind of done this to death. He lied to lefty membership to win leadership election, now he's lying to righty general public to win the general election...then what we'll get is a proper Maoist cultural revolution.

[Guest]

 

[kaosmark2]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

we've kind of done this to death. He lied to lefty membership to win leadership election, now he's lying to righty general public to win the general election...then what we'll get is a proper Maoist cultural revolution.

I have no interest in defending Starmer generally, but there are a few things from his leadership campaign that looked workable then and are basically impossible now. Covid and Trussonomics have made a bunch of the more leftie promises completely impractical/impossible to manage.

It's not the tacking right that's lost my trust in him (although it hasn't helped), it's throwing vulnerable members of society under the bus for votes, while endorsing racist abusive shitbags like Neil Coyle.

[steviewevie]

 

[Guest]

Starmer has been consistent that his main aim is to get the Labour Party into power, that’s essentially is number 1 goal and all the other pledges are really secondary to that. If he can keep Labour into position and some of those pledges (which he hasn’t had the chance to enact anyway) fall away then so be it. 

[Crazyfool01]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

Starmer has been consistent that his main aim is to get the Labour Party into power, that’s essentially is number 1 goal and all the other pledges are really secondary to that. If he can keep Labour into position and some of those pledges (which he hasn’t had the chance to enact anyway) fall away then so be it. 

Some of that stuff is really quite important though . But do see the reasons . Just quite interesting reading the thread from the start and that was one of the things that came up and yeah things have changed . Hopefully the NHS isn’t the one that falls away 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:

Some of that stuff is really quite important though . But do see the reasons . Just quite interesting reading the thread from the start and that was one of the things that came up and yeah things have changed . Hopefully the NHS isn’t the one that falls away 

Some of the stuff is still in there just in different forms. I don’t think his pledges matter, it’s all about what’s in the next Labour manifesto and so far the policies we do know sounds promising.

[Crazyfool01]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

Some of the stuff is still in there just in different forms. I don’t think his pledges matter, it’s all about what’s in the next Labour manifesto and so far the policies we do know sounds promising.

We will see . I guess .

[Neil]

7 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:

We will see . I guess .

Will Only work if moderation is consistent and the mods will act against their mates and the mods are told the rules to enforce themwnd users to abide by them.

[Crazyfool01]

3 minutes ago, Neil said:

Will Only work if moderation is consistent and the mods will act against their mates and the mods are told the rules to enforce themwnd users to abide by them.

Not sure what you are replying to there but yes 

[steviewevie]

More reports of Labour are scrapping the 28bill pledge altogether and then someone from Labour denying this...bet they're regretting ever coming up with this number.

[steviewevie]

Just now, steviewevie said:

More reports of Labour are scrapping the 28bill pledge altogether and then someone from Labour denying this...bet they're regretting ever coming up with this number.

they have the fiscal rules get out of jail card...always qualify with fiscal rules...which we don't know..

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

More reports of Labour are scrapping the 28bill pledge altogether and then someone from Labour denying this...bet they're regretting ever coming up with this number.

This is why Labour are so careful because even when they do it gets torn apart. It sounds like they do regret the funding for the policy and I can see why. However this is the 3rd time recently we’ve seen articles like this and then it gets denied. 

[steviewevie]

 

[Crazyfool01]

11 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

More reports of Labour are scrapping the 28bill pledge altogether and then someone from Labour denying this...bet they're regretting ever coming up with this number.

From what I can gather the source is currently the scum … will wait and see 

[steviewevie]

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:

From what I can gather the source is currently the scum … will wait and see 

It‘s already been rubbished. 

[Neil]

1 hour ago, kaosmark2 said:

Railways, buses, and utility provision all make sense to me to be nationalised. They naturally have a monopoly anyway because of the infrastructure requirements so the general public can't ever get the "benefits" of privatisation/capitalism for them.

Might make sense but doesn't work out like that. I used to work for nationalised electric. Govt nicked the profits exactly same as private owners do -and money allocated for investment got taken to pay other govt spending ( same as always happend with British rail). Only works well when Govt is flush with money. Renationalising will cause govt to be short of money for other things. Because the money to buy back Will be govt debt.

[Neil]

Someone Will be along to rewrite history very soon.

[kaosmark2]

2 hours ago, steviewevie said:

they have the fiscal rules get out of jail card...always qualify with fiscal rules...which we don't know..

Labour's fiscal rules were published in the mid 00s weren't they? It's just the thing of they were a made up set of concepts designed to show "you can trust Labour with the economy". I get why Labour are reluctant to do anything that goes beyond them and the borrowing restrictions outlined, but national, international, and governmental understanding of economics has changed in 20 years. It now feels as arbitrary as and relevant as talking about the Earldom of Wessex.

[kaosmark2]

1 hour ago, Neil said:

Might make sense but doesn't work out like that. I used to work for nationalised electric. Govt nicked the profits exactly same as private owners do -and money allocated for investment got taken to pay other govt spending ( same as always happend with British rail). Only works well when Govt is flush with money. Renationalising will cause govt to be short of money for other things. Because the money to buy back Will be govt debt.

I'm not denying that nationalised infrastructure and monopolies aren't open to corruption, abuse, and government mismanagement. I'm just saying that if you have a natural monopoly, members of the public don't ever see benefits of privatisation.