Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[Numero Veinticinco]

8 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

What is this fucking shit?

Are you capable of making a coherent, cogent argument? I honestly don't think you are. 

[Gnasher]

The cost of taking the rail network back in public hands is fairly cheap. The proccess fairy easy

 

 

https://www.economist.com/speakers-corner/2017/05/16/nationalisations-high-short-term-price-and-higher-long-term-cost

 

Don't listen to the shrills like numerocuntio. 

[Gnasher]

Just now, Numero Veinticinco said:

Are you capable of making a coherent, cogent argument? I honestly don't think you are. 

I honestly couldnt give a fuck what you think.

[cloggypop]

2 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

The cost of taking the rail network back in public hands is fairly cheap. The proccess fairy easy

 

 

https://www.economist.com/speakers-corner/2017/05/16/nationalisations-high-short-term-price-and-higher-long-term-cost

 

Don't listen to the shrills like numerocuntio. 

Don't often agree with Gnasher outside of music but he's spot on here. Renationalisation of the rail network isn't that difficult at all. 

[cloggypop]

Now reading Numerocunt's posts in a kind of seagull screech voice. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

10 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

I honestly couldnt give a fuck what you think.

I'm not entirely sure you are able to think. You've got fuck all to offer. 

[A Red]

Re-nationalisation of the Rail network is the cheapest of them all and it already runs with state subsidies. If that was the only one it would be hard to oppose on a monetary basis. 

 

The problem with broad nationalisation is that business decisions become political ones with different industries competing for the same money

[AngryOfTuebrook]

25 minutes ago, A Red said:

Re-nationalisation of the Rail network is the cheapest of them all and it already runs with state subsidies. If that was the only one it would be hard to oppose on a monetary basis. 

 

The problem with broad nationalisation is that business decisions become political ones with different industries competing for the same money

If you're talking about essential supplies like gas, electricity and water, the problem with privatisation is that political decisions  - such as deciding that everyone has a right to these absolute essentials at an affordable price, because that way the whole of society benefits  - become business ones, where the sole overriding concern is profit.

[SasaS]

1 hour ago, viRdjil said:

You’re looking at the wrong metric.

For what? I honestly don't get what you are trying to say.

9 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

If you're talking about essential supplies like gas, electricity and water, the problem with privatisation is that political decisions  - such as deciding that everyone has a right to these absolute essentials at an affordable price, because that way the whole of society benefits  - become business ones, where the sole overriding concern is profit.

How do you decide / calculate an affordable price? If you sell below the actual price, you are subsidising everyone, if you have a mechanism for capping the price for monopolies, you don't need nationalisation.

[Strontium]

Food is essential, but the food supply is wholly in private hands. Should we nationalise food production? And if not, why not?

[Gnasher]

1 hour ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Are you capable of making a coherent, cogent argument? I honestly don't think you are. 

Ok Numero, no insults I'll try. You'll probably just laugh at my bad spelling but let's try to keep it dignified.

 

I have provided a link that suggests around 1.8 billion rail fares are taken out each year. You imo seemed to argue that rail nationalisation was not a priority .

 

My view is that rail nationalisation  should be a priority because;

 

A. The amount of people being sold a bad service;  

 

B. The increased opportunities a cheap and efficient rail service would give to young people commuting to jobs they may otherwise turn down because of the cost 

 

C. It would help the environment  Better by rail than freight or plane 

 

D. It's a massive vote winner for the party that gives a good value for money service after years of people suffering under a corrupt system.

 

E  it's fairly easy and inexpensive to implement 

 

F.  if train services to rural communities were reintroduced it will save a lot of communities dying because people need to no longer move permanently to make a living, they can then commute. They may then also be able to afford to live in the town's they were brought up in

 

G  if we have a cheaper and more effective railway some of the money people save from the 1.8 billion fares they may have been overcharged  will probably be spent in our local shops to boost the economy..

[SasaS]

5 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Ok Numero, no insults I'll try. You'll probably just laugh at my bad spelling but let's try to keep it dignified.

 

I have provided a link that suggests around 1.8 billion rail fares are taken out each year. You imo seemed to argue that rail nationalisation was not a priority .

 

My view is that rail nationalisation  should be a priority because;

 

A. The amount of people being sold a bad service;  

 

B. The increased opportunities a cheap and efficient rail service would give to young people commuting to jobs they mat otherwise turn down because of the cost 

 

C. It would help the environment  Better by rail than freight or plane 

 

D. It's a massive vote winner for the party that gives a good value for money service after years of people suffering under a corrupt system.

 

E  it's fairy easy and inexpensive to implement 

 

F.  if train services to rural communities were reintroduced it will save a lot of communities dying because people need to no longer move permanently to make a living, they can then commute. They may then also be able to afford to live in the town's they were brought up in

 

G  if we have a cheaper and more effective railway some of the money people save from the 1.8 billion fares they may have been overcharged  will probably be spent in our local shops to boost the economy..

E. may be a bit tricky. To make railway simultaneously more efficient and affordable you would probably have to massively increase investments and subsidies. Before that, you would probably have to make a careful calculation of the benefits for the wider society against the money that same society would have to give the railways.
 

[Gnasher]

1 minute ago, SasaS said:

E. may be a bit tricky. To make railway simultaneously more efficient and affordable you would probably have to massively increase investments and subsidies. Before that, you would probably have to make a careful calculation of the benefits for the wider society against the money that same society would have to give the railways.
 

Nah.  just take it off the cunts on day one. 

[A Red]

32 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

If you're talking about essential supplies like gas, electricity and water, the problem with privatisation is that political decisions  - such as deciding that everyone has a right to these absolute essentials at an affordable price, because that way the whole of society benefits  - become business ones, where the sole overriding concern is profit.

And gives the unions/labour central control of an industry that could be used as a political weapon. The 70's.

 

 

[A Red]

26 minutes ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

Food is essential, but the food supply is wholly in private hands. Should we nationalise food production? And if not, why not?

Clause 4

[SasaS]

16 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Nah.  just take it off the cunts on day one. 

 

You would still have to subsidise and invest. You cannot just double of triple the volume and /or capacity and cut the fare price by half or 2/3 just because you have "taken it off the cunts".

[sir roger]

A Red , if you don't mind me saying , you are coming across as a bit obsessed with the union angle on these proposed nationalisations. I'm sure that Unions would always be weighing up what benefits they might get for their members in such situations, but union legislation and receding member numbers mean there is very little correlation between the present situation and the 70's.

 

I have seen no other real suggestion bar from yourself that the Labour nationalisation policy is aimed at anything other than trying to restore ownership and improve these industries for the people of this country.

[Red Phoenix]

9 minutes ago, A Red said:

And gives the unions/labour central control of an industry that could be used as a political weapon. The 70's.

The 70's? Can't do 1080p gaming in the 70's so fuck that. So we should leave people like Branson alone and stay in 2019. I mean he's just playing with trains like some of us did with train sets when we were kids. Except that he has real trains, and makes a load of cash doing it. Not sure why he gets all the abuse when thinking of it like that actually, poor sod.

[A Red]

10 minutes ago, sir roger said:

A Red , if you don't mind me saying , you are coming across as a bit obsessed with the union angle on these proposed nationalisations. I'm sure that Unions would always be weighing up what benefits they might get for their members in such situations, but union legislation and receding member numbers mean there is very little correlation between the present situation and the 70's.

 

I have seen no other real suggestion bar from yourself that the Labour nationalisation policy is aimed at anything other than trying to restore ownership and improve these industries for the people of this country.

Fair comment, i have droned on about it, im just pleased with myself for coming up with it.

 

I'll save my other nationalisation misgivings for another day

[mattyq]

25 minutes ago, A Red said:

And gives the unions/labour central control of an industry that could be used as a political weapon. The 70's.

 

 

Mate, all the shit going on now and you're banging on about something that happened 50 years ago... bit odd

[TheHowieLama]

Twice now Gnasher has said it was "fairy easy" -- maybe sausage fingers, maybe freudian slip

[cloggypop]

50 years ago you say... 

 

Happy 50th to The Stooges first album! 

 

 

[mattyq]

3 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Twice now Gnasher has said it was "fairy easy" -- maybe sausage fingers, maybe freudian slip

I'm not saying Gnash has Pixies living at the bottom of the garden but he does

And they're nationalised 

[Strontium]

2 minutes ago, mattyq said:

I'm not saying Gnash has Pixies living at the bottom of the garden but he does

And they're nationalised 

 

That'll be the National Elf Service.

[cloggypop]

Wish I had Black Francis, Kim Deal and the others at the bottom of my garden.