Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[aRdja]

9 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Efficient businesses operate by only serving the customers it is profitable to serve. In the case of most businesses, that's fine: there is no overriding societal need for a pizza place to offer free deliveries more than 3 miles away, so we're happy for them to refuse to serve those customers. 

 

However, some things which fulfil universal basic needs and societal demand - health, education, security, water, sewage, public transport, gas/electricity, etc. - cannot be fully met by market forces. As a society, we choose not to just let people suffer if they are outside the reach of private provision of these things.  The compromise we have had for the last few decades is, basically, to have the profitable stuff run privately and the unprofitable funded by the public sector.  It's hard to argue that there's anything efficient or equitable about that.

Angry knows. 

[SasaS]

6 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Efficient businesses operate by only serving the customers it is profitable to serve. In the case of most businesses, that's fine: there is no overriding societal need for a pizza place to offer free deliveries more than 3 miles away, so we're happy for them to refuse to serve those customers. 

 

However, some things which fulfil universal basic needs and societal demand - health, education, security, water, sewage, public transport, gas/electricity, etc. - cannot be fully met by market forces. As a society, we choose not to just let people suffer if they are outside the reach of private provision of these things.  The compromise we have had for the last few decades is, basically, to have the profitable stuff run privately and the unprofitable funded by the public sector.  It's hard to argue that there's anything efficient or equitable about that.

I don't disagree with most of  this. I think the article is overselling the various benefits part, as in having and eating the proverbial cake. It either has a benefit for the society which comes with a cost, or is a moneymaking operation, in which case the end user (ant the employees) may not see much difference. It is not going to be better in every conceivable way, that is just another (ideological) dogma.

[sir roger]

4 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Latest polling shows Labour now behind the Conservatives in Wales.  

Blackadder : Have you ever been to Wales, Rico ?

Rico : No, but I've often thought I'd like to.

Blackadder : Well don't, it's a ghastly place. Huge gangs of tough sinewy men roam the valleys terrorising people with their close-harmony singing. You need half a pint of phlegm in your throat just to pronounce the placenames. Never ask for directions in Wales Baldrick, you'll be washing spit out of your hair for a fortnight.

[SasaS]

7 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Shareholders would not be able to sue Parliament, because Parliament would be acting in accordance with the law (what, with them being the ones who make the law an' all).

There may be higher courts like the ECJ.

Oh, wait...

[cloggypop]

47 minutes ago, sir roger said:

Blackadder : Have you ever been to Wales, Rico ?

Rico : No, but I've often thought I'd like to.

Blackadder : Well don't, it's a ghastly place. Huge gangs of tough sinewy men roam the valleys terrorising people with their close-harmony singing. You need half a pint of phlegm in your throat just to pronounce the placenames. Never ask for directions in Wales Baldrick, you'll be washing spit out of your hair for a fortnight.

Apart from close harmony and valleys this is why I don't go and watch Feyenoord any more. 

[pauliescouse]

They've had it wrong all along... he's not a sympathiser, he's a:

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

23 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

The CBI figures shouldn't be taken as the absolute truth (and they should certainly not be taken as impartial).

https://weownit.org.uk/blog/here’s-why-cbi-wrong-about-labour’s-nationalisation-plans

 

"Public ownership is an investment, not a cost

 

As John McDonnell keeps pointing out, when it comes to water, energy and the Royal Mail, we’d be acquiring profitable assets which would return billions to the public purse every year....

 

But what about the upfront cost of buying back the companies involved? 

 

Well, it’s not up to the CBI. Parliament will decide on compensation levels for buying back our services, based on the public interest. 

 

UK and European courts have repeatedly said that “legitimate objectives of 'public interest', such as pursued in measures of economic reform or measures designed to achieve greater social justice, may call for less than reimbursement of the full market value”...

 

The CBI said today that renationalisation of water, energy, rail and Royal Mail would cost £196 billion. There are two problems with the way they calculated this figure.

 

Firstly, they used the Regulatory Asset Base (RAB)/Regulatory Capital Value (RCV) of the companies involved. But this isn’t the real market value, it’s just a notional figure used by the regulators.

 

Secondly, the 30% markup is based on traditional takeover practice. But bringing assets into public ownership isn’t a takeover. 

 

It’s hard to imagine that parliament would justify giving shareholders 30% extra on top of RAB/RCV. Why would this huge handout to investors be in the public interest?..

 

Public ownership pays for itself

 

Buying back the water companies in England would pay for itself in 8 years. It would cost £15 billion (the actual book value of shareholders’ investments) and we’d save £2.3 billion a year.

 

Buying back our energy networks would pay for itself in 7 years.  It would cost £22 billion (the actual book value of shareholders’ investments) to buy back the National Grid and the regional distribution companies and we’d save £3.2 billion a year. 

 

Buying back our Royal Mail  would pay for itself in 7 years. It would be even simpler - the private owners have managed it so badly that the market value today is only £2.2 billion, less than half of even the book value of the company - and we would save over £300 million a year.

 

When it comes to rail, we can take franchises in house one at a time as they come up for renewal without paying a penny in compensation. We already own the infrastructure through Network Rail. When new trains are needed, we can buy them directly on behalf of the public, and save ourselves the £200 million a year currently going to rolling stock shareholders.

 

We would then collectively own, control and benefit from all the assets of our public water, energy, post and rail systems...

 

Bringing these assets into public ownership would not only pay for itself, it would have huge benefits for the environment, society and economy. Benefits like transparency, democratic accountability, lower bills and fares, more investment, more care and better services. 

 

Instead of insisting private companies have to do everything, we can embrace a mixed economy and 21st century public ownership. Public services should work for all of us, not just for shareholders. The sooner we make it happen, the better."

 

Didn't see this 'til now. Didn't even get a ping. I'll reply tomorrow. 

[Rico1304]

 

[Bjornebye]

9 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

 

Which labour MP? One that doesn’t exist ?

[aRdja]

10 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47779783

 

Hundreds of current Labour MPs voted for Common Market 2.0?

[Bjornebye]

1 minute ago, viRdjil said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47779783

 

Hundreds of current Labour MPs voted for Common Market 2.0?

It’s lies mate. She is a liar. Also forgetting the 21 whips the Tories jibbed for disagreeing with a racist buffoon. 

[Dr Nowt]

Sounds legit. She’s an unimpeachable source and the deal being suggested is definitely one you’d need to be a commie maniac to knock back.

[sir roger]

Can't see it being true as Corbyn doesn't really work like that , although with this roll call of horror I have my fingers crossed.

[Bjornebye]

19 minutes ago, Lizzie Birdsworths Wrinkled Chopper said:

Sounds legit. She’s an unimpeachable source and the deal being suggested is definitely one you’d need to be a commie maniac to knock back.

If I wasn't on a weeks Twitter ban for calling a Tory MP a lying cunt I'd be straight on there now calling her a lying cunt. 

[sir roger]

Didn't know much about Dorries other than the I'm a Celebrity kerfuffle , but her Wiki is hair-raising.

 

The fact that she has been given a government position should be amazing but sadly is nothing out of the ordinary at the moment.

[aRdja]

49 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

 

I’ll raise you....

 

 

[sir roger]

Is O-Patz one of those hippity-hoppity singers that Paul likes ?

[Bjornebye]

15 minutes ago, sir roger said:

Is O-Patz one of those hippity-hoppity singers that Paul likes ?

2 of Westminsterz Most Wanted 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

The CBI appear to have costed some random thing they'd pulled out of their arses when reaching their £200bn prediction, rather than costing Labour's actual proposed policy. 

 

They've admitted to this now. But, the incorrect £200bn figure is what will remain in people's heads. 

[Mudface]

4 minutes ago, Nelly-Torres said:

The CBI appear to have costed some random thing they'd pulled out of their arses when reaching their £200bn prediction, rather than costing Labour's actual proposed policy. 

 

They've admitted to this now. But, the incorrect £200bn figure is what will remain in people's heads. 

Mission achieved then. 

 

It's at times like this that Corbyn's refusal to dance to the press's tune comes back to bite him though. Blair would have had Campbell rampaging through the airwaves with instant rebuttals.

[Jairzinho]

32 minutes ago, Mudface said:

Mission achieved then. 

 

It's at times like this that Corbyn's refusal to dance to the press's tune comes back to bite him though. Blair would have had Campbell rampaging through the airwaves with instant rebuttals.

Yes. Or rather, he has to do something. Ignoring them won't make their influence fuck off, not quickly enough anyway.

 

A Campbell figure on the BBC and Sky every 20 minutes could deal with this. As could regularly going on every single "non mainstream" media source and explaining how and why certain organisations act as they do, and how the coverage from the BBC et al doesn't scrutinise them (because they represent the same interests).

 

What you can't do is nothing.

 

Every time one of those cunts on the BBC or Sky News lies or deliberately misleads the public I would be pointing out they used to be in the Tory party, or in the case of Sky News that the station is owned by a tax dodging billionaire. Make it absolutely fucking clear for even the biggest imbecile in the country why our cunt media acts as it does.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

37 minutes ago, Mudface said:

Mission achieved then. 

 

It's at times like this that Corbyn's refusal to dance to the press's tune comes back to bite him though. Blair would have had Campbell rampaging through the airwaves with instant rebuttals.

Blair's dancing didn't come free. The price for Murdoch's support included maintaining unfair taxes and Thatcherite trade union laws and the attack on Iraq.

 

Jairz is right: Labour need to be quicker and louder in their denunciation of agenda-driven bullshit and lies. (Witness the fact that the best defence of Labour’s policies came from We Own It, not from the Labour Party.)

[Mudface]

2 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Blair's dancing didn't come free. The price for Murdoch's support included maintaining unfair taxes and Thatcherite trade union laws and the attack on Iraq.

 

Jairz is right: Labour need to be quicker and louder in their denunciation of agenda-driven bullshit and lies. (Witness the fact that the best defence of Labour’s policies came from We Own It, not from the Labour Party.)

Yep- Corbyn needs to tread the middle ground between Blair's obeisance to the press, and his own 'fuck you' to them (a Third Way...). He doesn't need to kowtow to the Murdoch cunts and the likes of the Mail and Express, he does need a more pro-active policy to get his message out there though. It worked well during the election in 2017 when the BBC etc had to give him equivalent coverage, but it would be good to see on a more constant basis.

[Anubis]

10 hours ago, sir roger said:

Didn't know much about Dorries other than the I'm a Celebrity kerfuffle , but her Wiki is hair-raising.

 

You only need to know her nickname is Mad Nad. Says it all.

[Barrington Womble]

On 14/10/2019 at 22:52, sir roger said:

Don't get the hating of Diane Abbott at all , it appears that getting a figure wrong on live radio while ignoring your diabetes medication through overwork is far more important than being proved right over Iraq , id cards and being a tireless proponent of pro-abortion choice and opponent of the racist ' Windrush ' Tory environment. One thing is for certain , she is worth 10 of Priti Patel.

 

Labour is the only party that has a sizeable split between Leavers and Remainers so has to have a more nuanced stance , but Corbyn is suggesting that he will not favour any side in a Labour Brexit referendum & I would expect MP's and members to be allowed to push their own preference but do not think there will be an official Labour position.

 

Surely you read or hear the news that Johnson's orcs are searching for any way of subverting the Benn bill , so how stupid would the opposition parties be to agree to an election in short order and then find out it would be fought after Johnson had already wangled us out on a no-Deal wheeze.

 

It may not work , but paragraph 2 outlines Labour's effort to avoid your election worry.

 

If you look at the policies of the various parties and feel somebody deserves your vote more than Labour , that is your choice and good luck with it , but the stuff you outlined is pretty weak stuff in my opinion.

 

( I am not getting into the a/s shite as it annoys me that much )

Come on Sir Rog, she was a comic figure way before getting that figure wrong. I don't think she could be taken seriously as a home secretary. Patel is a massive cunt, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't see the weaknesses within the shadow cabinet.