advertisement


Winter election

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seeker_UK said:
I don't disagree that the example you gave is an appallingly bad use of public money and, to leave no doubt, I do not believe that it is always the case that 'private good, public bad' but:
  • All PLCs about the shareholders' profit.
  • The vast majority of government spend goes to PLCs.
  • So a lot of government spend goes to shareholders.
In your example, it is unlikely that the company acted illegally or somehow 'stole' the money. The only reason, that the a greater percentage of public money went to shareholders is because of a poor contract and poorly enforcing it. That's not an excuse, that's a statement of fact. However, what I will say which is IMHO is that the best commercial and contracting specialists tend not to work in Government because they can get much more working for industry and tend to move there, so the Government will always be at a bit of a disadvantage.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with public money going into PLCs - creates jobs, taxation and the rest. I have a big issue with contract management that loses sight of objectives and requirements or rewards shareholders without justification. Half of that is 'contract management' but the players themselves have responsibility, or should have.

I've never seen 'private good/public bad or vice versa. But there are monopoly concerns that while attractive to buyers are seldom in the public interest. One of the first signs of something not being suitable for privatisation is when a market has to be forced or even created.
 
Stunsworth said:
Billions are being spent on Crossrail to enable trains to cross central London, billions are being spent on HS2 to enable high speed trains in and out of London, yet the HS2 trains can’t use Crossrail to connect to the other high speed line and hence onto the continent. Where’s the joined up thinking on that?
Click to expand...
I don't disagree but that is down to infrastructure planning rather down to public/private distinctions. All major projects will involve private companies on some level
 
SteveS1 said:
But Christ, why announce something huge and technical that can be picked over ad nauseam by rivals - with questions fired at less than savvy MPs who will struggle to answer, just as the NHS scandal was encouraging the Tories to run away from scrutiny and fail to put up people for key debates?
Click to expand...
This is a Corbyn masterstroke and has grabbed the headlines. It has achieved the objective of distracting interviewers asking where he stands on Brexit, in or out, referendum or no referendum.
 
Colin Barron said:
This is a Corbyn masterstroke and has grabbed the headlines. It has achieved the objective of distracting interviewers asking where he stands on Brexit, in or out, referendum or no referendum.
Click to expand...

He is clear on Brexit, only the hard of thinking or those wishing it were otherwise don't get that. You can argue about whether he would get a better deal (it could hardly be worse than Johnson's), you can argue that he should state whether he would back it in a vote. What you can't argue is whether he has a clear position.
 
SteveS1 said:
He is clear on Brexit, only the hard of thinking or those wishing it were otherwise don't get that. You can argue about whether he would get a better deal (it could hardly be worse than Johnson's), you can argue that he should state whether he would back it in a vote. What you can't argue is whether he has a clear position.
Click to expand...

His clear position is not to have a position.
 
How many people in the UK would CARE if the UK offered free broadband or not ? Are the folks of the UK not more concerned about whether there will be a recession, more austerity and further collapse of the NHS ? I would hope the electorate response to the Labour free broadband offer is "who cares".
 
SteveS1 said:
He is clear on Brexit, only the hard of thinking or those wishing it were otherwise don't get that. .
Click to expand...

He was asked on the local TV news when he visited Doncaster whether a Labour government under him would hold another referendum ... he said after quite a pause " not with two years of a Labour government.'

It left a big space to speculate within. I would not have labelled the reply as "clear".
 
Going back to trains for a moment:

1. Cost of two new stations and 12 miles of track near me recently: £320m

2. Tory pledge to reverse Beeching cuts: £500m

Hmmm.
 
Joe said:
He was asked on the local TV news when he visited Doncaster whether a Labour government under him would hold another referendum ... he said after quite a pause " not with two years of a Labour government.'

It left a big space to speculate within. I would not have labelled the reply as "clear".
Click to expand...

I don't really care about interviews I'm going by the published position. Does this really look unclear to you, or do you prefer to think of it as unclear? I'm not in agreement with it, but it's clear. I think they would be far better to put Johnson's turd to a vote against remain with the strap line "is this what you were promised?".

https://labour.org.uk/page/labour-brexit-plan/
 
Brian said:
A position of holding a second referendum is clearly a very clear position. What is unclear about it in your opinion? Just want to be clear about which bit you think isn’t clear?
Click to expand...

The most basic, fundamental question about Brexit is the question that kicked the whole thing off: Remain or Leave?

There may be some supplementary questions, especially if the answer is Leave, but when people say Corbyn/Labour are being unclear about Brexit, this is the question they want an answer to. I think all the other parties do have a clear answer now.

Is that really so hard to understand?

Kind regards

- Garry
 
glancaster said:
The most basic, fundamental question about Brexit is the question that kicked the whole thing off: Remain or Leave?

There may be some supplementary questions, especially if the answer is Leave, but when people say Corbyn/Labour are being unclear about Brexit, this is the question they want an answer to. I think all the other parties do have a clear answer now.

Is that really so hard to understand?

Kind regards

- Garry
Click to expand...

Bit of a straw man Garry, their Brexit 'position' is clear, whether you agree with it or not.

https://labour.org.uk/page/labour-brexit-plan/

Their leave or remain position was also clear in 2016 - 'remain'.
 
glancaster said:
The most basic, fundamental question about Brexit is the question that kicked the whole thing off: Remain or Leave?

There may be some supplementary questions, especially if the answer is Leave, but when people say Corbyn/Labour are being unclear about Brexit, this is the question they want an answer to. I think all the other parties do have a clear answer now.

Is that really so hard to understand?

Kind regards

- Garry
Click to expand...
Not at all, it’s very easy to understand, the trouble is, how do you know this is what people are saying? Are you sure it isn’t just another stick with which opponents hit Labour? That’s more likely given where these noises are coming from. Labour’s is the only sensible policy on the brexit issue being offered by any party.

The Labour position is to present a leave deal versus a remain deal, let the people vote then implement the outcome. I don’t need the Labour party to take a remain or leave position to help me vote.

It is good policy to state you will allow a second referendum, making clear to everyone across the HoC and the country ahead of the vote the position is the outcome WILL be implemented.

What on earth do you think will happen if Labour positioned itself remain and the outcome of the referendum is again leave? How will they implement it properly? Bloody hell man, have you not had enough of this stalemate in the country? The issues of the last 3 years have been caused in no small part by a political party and most of its MPs positioning itself for remain ahead of the referendum then the outcome being to leave.


Is that really so hard to understand?
 
SteveS1 said:
He is clear on Brexit, only the hard of thinking or those wishing it were otherwise don't get that. You can argue about whether he would get a better deal (it could hardly be worse than Johnson's), you can argue that he should state whether he would back it in a vote. What you can't argue is whether he has a clear position.
Click to expand...
If you believe what politicians say:
Tory.....leave with or without a deal if they win.
LD........Remain without consulting electorate if they win.
People want this sorting one way or the other and there are two parties giving a clear we can sort it out promise.
 
Brian said:
Not at all, it’s very easy to understand, the trouble is, how do you know this is what people are saying? Are you sure it isn’t just another stick with which opponents hit Labour? That’s more likely given where these noises are coming from. Labour’s is the only sensible policy on the brexit issue being offered by any party.
Click to expand...

It's just obvious, the first logical question about Brexit is Brexit, yes/no?

It is a stick too. One that Labour have crafted and gift-wrapped, for all who care to beat them.

Brian said:
The Labour position is to present a leave deal versus a remain deal, let the people vote then implement the outcome. I don’t need the Labour party to take a remain or leave position to help me vote.
Click to expand...

Good for you. However, many people would like to know where a party they are considering stands on this issue. It will partially or wholly decide how they vote. A party that has no answer to this basic Brexit question may be at a disadvantage competing against parties that do.

Brian said:
It is good policy to state you will allow a second referendum, making clear to everyone across the HoC and the country ahead of the vote the position is the outcome WILL be implemented.
Click to expand...

I don't believe it. The Labour Party would struggle greatly to implement a Leave vote because their voters, their members, and their MPs are mostly for Remain. I don't believe they would be able to do it. It would tear them apart.

Brian said:
What on earth do you think will happen if Labour positioned itself remain and the outcome of the referendum is again leave? How will they implement it properly? Bloody hell man, have you not had enough of this stalemate in the country? The issues of the last 3 years have been caused in no small part by a political party and most of its MPs positioning itself for remain ahead of the referendum then the outcome being to leave.
Click to expand...

If I wanted to end the Brexit stalemate above all else, I would vote for a party that has already decided whether it wants to Leave or Remain, who therefore has no need to hold a further referendum on the subject. I agree it would be daft for any 'Brexit-decided' party to hold one.

Labour will have a problem anyway if they run a referendum and the result is to Leave (see above). This being the case it would seem sensible to admit it now, and just go for out and out Remain. The only reason I can come up with why they haven't done this is because they don't think they will win the election, so they think it is practical to stay on the fence forever, not alienating any core supporters, and with freedom to oppose whatever government is formed from whatever angle seems most advantageous.

Brian said:
Is that really so hard to understand?
Click to expand...

Mixed.

Kind regards

- Garry
 
Here's a slightly older YouTube of the magnificent Geoff and Vicky on what the HS2 trains will be like - clue, they already have them in Italy (a backward and impoverished, EU outpost, sic)

 
glancaster said:
It's just obvious, the first logical question about Brexit is Brexit, yes/no?

It is a stick too. One that Labour have crafted and gift-wrapped, for all who care to beat them.



Good for you. However, many people would like to know where a party they are considering stands on this issue. It will partially or wholly decide how they vote. A party that has no answer to this basic Brexit question may be at a disadvantage competing against parties that do.



I don't believe it. The Labour Party would struggle greatly to implement a Leave vote because their voters, their members, and their MPs are mostly for Remain. I don't believe they would be able to do it. It would tear them apart.



If I wanted to end the Brexit stalemate above all else, I would vote for a party that has already decided whether it wants to Leave or Remain, who therefore has no need to hold a further referendum on the subject. I agree it would be daft for any 'Brexit-decided' party to hold one.

Labour will have a problem anyway if they run a referendum and the result is to Leave (see above). This being the case it would seem sensible to admit it now, and just go for out and out Remain. The only reason I can come up with why they haven't done this is because they don't think they will win the election, so they think it is practical to stay on the fence forever, not alienating any core supporters, and with freedom to oppose whatever government is formed from whatever angle seems most advantageous.



Mixed.

Kind regards

- Garry
Click to expand...
I disagree with just about all of that. I’m just glad I don’t need my arse wiped by politicians.

Labour can run a referendum and survive a leave vote if it is made clear the outcome of the referendum is binding. Yes, there will still be some really rabid remainers, but they can be ignored under the circumstances if the referendum is done properly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top