Prime minister’s debate

I like you Jimmy, I like you a lot. But it is scary how little lefties understand business. The above just isn't achievable, possible or realistic.

Nationalisation would be a massive undertaking. I'm not hugely against it other than to say the Tories will surely get back into power at some point and sell it off again, or run it into the ground, so it's a mute argument.

Just a little edit to say that in Proportional Representation addled Ireland the Greens are part of the coalition gov. They've added some great policies

 

im a trained economist. Worked as a researcher and economic advisor to the TUC and Labour in the Blair years if you wanna trade economic know how…

John Portes probably our best ‘political economist’ reviewed Labours 2019 economic plans. He found them both achievable and cost neutral ( though had sone issues with pension deficits). Note Portes is not in favour of nationalisation but just made the argument that cost is not an issue.

The argument you can’t change anything because someone else might change it back again is frankly pathetic. But you could easily fix that. Change the electoral system to a PR based one which would freeze out extremists and probably the tories.

All the good work Blair did in schools, NHS, taking kids out of poverty was undone in 2 years by the ConDems because he reneged on his agreement with Ashdown on PR.

 

i see Starmer and Johnson as essentially the same.

 

That is where we'll have to disagree.

 

Caught on a lie. Shifty and uncomfortable imagine this every day for 5 weeks before an election.

Basically. “Did you lie then or are you lying now” on repeat.

He is a very poor media performer who can’t think on his feet.

Taking about day to day spend. Electrification of tracks for example of not day to day spend. Building power stations is not day to day spend. Just idiocy.

 

Really?

Johnson doesn’t lie, he does something far worse. He deceives. Johnson is a self-serving, self-centred narcissist who, in my opinion, ticks these boxes.

Superficial Charm.
Exaggerated sense of self-esteem.
Deceitfulness.
Shallow Emotions. ...
Boredom and a Need for Stimulation.
A History of Shady Conduct.
A Riddle of Contradictions.

The 7 traits of a psychopath.

He is very, very dangerous and, in the opinion of many who know him, unfit for any kind of office, never mind that of Prime Minster.

But hey. Starmer. They're all the same.

 

I will bow to your far superior cv and not take my points further.

 

You’re right at least Johnson has charm. Starmer is just an empty suit spouting lies.

 

What happened there (other than LT papping herself live on air) - did the stand collapse?

As long as everyone is unhurt that was the (only) highlight!

 

Perhaps the girl running the show collapsed. Liz looked a bit too shocked for it to be a collapsing stand.

 

Agreed and it wouldn't have been suspended so long if it was only the stand. Hope everyone is okay.

 

For anyone, like me, who wasn’t watching:

 

It’s not a question of me being right. I was stating the attributes of a psychopath. And it’s not about lies but deception. Maybe you, like so many, fall for a charmer. Good luck.

 

nope I hate all liars so both Johnson and Starmer. I don’t forgive a liar because they are on my side.

 

I can accept that there might be possibilities on rail, which Starmer acknowledged yesterday. But the above statement is economically and legally naive.

I think to regard Johnson and Starmer as in any way similar takes us away from the realms of sensible debate.

 

I genuinely find it incredible that Starmer and Johnson are seen as equivalents on the lying stakes, I really do.

Based on what?

The given example on nationalisation - is that a lie? It was his policy two plus years ago, and he’s given a logical reason why he may have to change tack on that. Cost neutral (eventually) it may be, but there is an obvious initial investment, a massive one, which is seen to be unviable in his eyes currently. Do we all agree? Probably not - but that doesn’t show him to be a liar - and if it did, a serial, pathological one with dangerous undertone and consequence?

Some people will never like Starmer because he isn’t Corbyn. Corbyn was a right wing media’s wet dream, they destroyed him. Unfairly, but still. Put up a left leaning true socialist and they’d be absolutely mullered.

We have to decide at some point whether we will vote for ideals or vote for change. Labour have lost Scotland forever; they are losing a lot of traditional vote to green (and some to the tories though I expect that to reverse now brexit ‘got done’ and folk are living on the bones of their arses) - a split left vote such as it is, with the SNP holding Scotland for the foreseeable, leaves us with only one result.

That is a scary prospect. Is a Starmer government ideal? Far from it. But assuming the election is at least a couple of years away, it’s a far more attractive proposition than more years of this far right agenda, headed up by either of the two that have been selected by the Tory MPs.

If Starmer is still the leader at the next election they will still get my vote. I can’t envisage any other way of ousting this government, and for me that has to be the priority over anything else.

 

For a trained economist , you are talking bo**x regarding the "ease" and neutral cost of re-nationalising the power industry. Overall around 52% of the UK electricity supply market is British owned companies.
The power distribution network is largely British owned... National Grid and SSE and Scottish Power.* Gas distribution and pipelines is a different story.. largely foreign owned large investment consortiums with relatively small percentage of UK investors. Foreign owned as are gas pipelines.

*Scottish power is only a minor player but even they are owned by a foreign ( Spanish) Company.

Trying to unravel the multiple levels and complexity -made worse due to Global investors and ownership of Gas and Electricity generation, distribution and supply is certainly not simple. You cannot simply seize the assets (including countless Pension fund investors) to set up a rival company, Economics may be your thing but how "cost is not an issue" makes absolutely no sense. The legal bills and legislation cost alone would be mind bending. In any case, how do you set up a Govt owned company (Govts are there to govern and regulate and NOT actually run businesses) when the infrastructure required to deliver is privately owned?

 

Understatement of the year!

 

Let’s look at it this way.

We’re all on a bus when deranged lunatic takes the wheel. We veer off the road and are heading for a cliff. There’s nothing we can do. But wait! There’s another bus driver on board! If he can grab the wheel then we’ll have a chance. Then one passengers takes a look at this bus driver’s license. Oh dear…. he’s got 6 points on his licence. Is he really the sort of person we want in the driving seat? A row breaks out among the passengers. The cliff edge is getting frighteningly close…

 

Not getting into a argument, just remembering a few things UK government's have done over the years and wondering where they fit in this narrative. In the 1980s Nigel Lawson created a company called BritOil and put all the existing North sea fields in and exploration rights. This was later sold off to private investors. Also,I think Alistair Darling created banks during the 2008 economic crisis and transferred debts into them,he used banks and building societies that had ceased over the years,such as the Midland,Bradford and Bingley. I could be misremebering,as is common at my age. Just wondered how this fitted in with this topic,I think Tony Benn did something similar in the 1960s,when at the GPO. I know under the current rail franchising system,if one fails,it comes under the D.o.T. management. The East coast mainline service is currently run by the govt,whenever it has been in the last 10 years, it has made a profit.