Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

General Election 2019


Bjornebye
 Share

Who are you voting for?   

142 members have voted

  1. 1. Who are you voting for?



Recommended Posts

It seems like almost every time Labour offer something truly good that can change things for the better the Tories shit themselves at the thought of the general public seeing something good happen and start going on about how it's another Labour fantasy and that we're all going to pay for it. Then when Labour account for it with actual figures, usually taxing something shitty corporations or the rich, the Tories then completely ignore it and just keep lying about how it's a fantasy.

 

Any talk of a significant move from the austerity that they'd rather keep us in perpetually so the corps and rich can keep hoarding most of the cash and it's back to the usual fearmongering. And if that doesn't work it's IRA, terrorist sympathiser, antisemite, etc. Mental how so many people go along with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genuinely well thought out policy for families and business. Need to push on now with negativity towards conservative performance reference the national health and the non growth of the economy. Targets and figures published for both have been abysmal this week and have not had enough attention. This is factual conservative government performance based on their policies. Need to get this Brexit narrative of the mainstream agenda for a while. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One good thing about election time with someone like Corbyn as Labour leader is the huge sense of the elites genuinely concerned that a load of their long established scams could be about to come to an end. Polls are supposed to indicate that that Labour have little or no chance but you can tell they're not relaxing about it. Farage leaving all the Tory seats alone, Lib Dems looking more like they'd prefer to stop Corbyn than giving a shit about the EU, right wingers continuing their long running antisemitism smears while they know the public is increasingly aware of the near total ignorance of Islamophobia concerns, media gong mental and so on.

 

There's a real sense of chaos, but you'd really think they'd deserve all of their scams to start actually unravelling at this stage too. Shame if we end up with the usual idiots in power but if that happens and Corbyn leaves I think he's done well. He's clearly driven a load of them around the bend at times, the Labour party has hopefully been changed for the better and the public is way more aware that things can actually be different now. If Labour can at least get another leader sorted that actually cares about people and that can't be so tarnished with smears maybe the Tories will be out in the near future. I think Corbyn's biggest problem is that he's not called out the lies, maybe another decent leader will challenge them head on from the off though, knowing what happened to Corbyn.

 

Right wingers and centrists go on about how "leftist" governments have been in power for so long in some countries and how all their problems have socialism as their cause, well a few more years of the Tories and that crap shouldn't wash any longer because we'll have had Tory rule for fucking ages, the state of this place will be impossible to ignore and which had fuck all to do with socialism and their hypocrisy will be a lot clearer to see.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nationalising water, energy and Royal Mail would pay for itself within seven years, research says

Shareholders would not be paid ‘market value’ for assets under £50bn nationalisation. 

 

The nationalisation of water, energy grids and the Royal Mail would save UK households £7.8 billion a year and pay for itself within seven years, according to new academic research.

A report by Greenwich University's Public Service International Research Unit put the total cost of compensation to private sector owners at just £49.7 billion - around a quarter of the widely-quoted £196 billion price tag calculated by the CBI last month, which also covered rail.

Labour's manifesto for the 12 December general election is expected to include commitments to take the rail network, National Grid, water and mail delivery back into public hands.

PSIRU director David Hall said his estimates were based on compensating shareholders for the amount they have invested in utilities being taken into public hands, rather than paying out a "market value" price as the CBI suggested.

Savings are calculated by comparing the current cost of dividends and interest paid by private companies to the cost of refinancing with debt raised by issuing government bonds.

 

Prof Hall found this would save the UK £2.5bn a year on water, £3.7bn on gas and electricity and a further £1.4bn if existing Private Finance Initiative projects were nationalised.

Professor Hall calculates that the average household would be £142 better off a year as a result of nationalising energy grids, and £113 better off if English water companies were publicly owned.

 

"Based on intensive empirical research, this paper shows that public ownership of utilities would result in annual savings of just under £8bn - so nationalisation would pay for itself in less than seven years," said Prof Hall.

"Nationalisation would cost less than £50bn if shareholders are compensated for the amount they have actually invested, rather than costing the country nearly £200bn as claimed by the CBI last month.

"UK law does not require that they be paid the 'market value', and it is up to parliament to decide on a case-by-case basis the appropriate amount of compensation."

Cat Hobbs, director of the pro-nationalisation pressure group We Own It, said public ownership would allow the companies to pursue improvements seen in state-owned enterprises such as the French postal system, which offers food deliveries, home care for people with chronic illnesses and a key concierge service as well as delivering letters.

"It's absolutely clear that privatisation is bad deal for the public purse, and for our public services," said Ms Hobbs.

"We're wasting billions on shareholder dividends and the higher cost of investment in the private sector. By bringing our services into public ownership, we could use that money to deliver better services for all of us.

"Other countries are showing us what this would look like in practice. From Paris cutting bills, cutting leaks and delivering still and sparkling water fountains all across the city to Denmark leading a renewable energy revolution through its publicly owned wind turbines, public ownership is flourishing."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Pistonbroke
30 minutes ago, Nelly-Torres said:

Well, that's me convinced... 

 

 

 

Christ on a bike. He just comes over as somebody who can't answer anything away from preordained questions. He has a script he follows in that head of his and even the simplest of questions which don't tie in with that script throw him off track. I imagine 5 years of him in charge will not end well for the UK. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't fully understand this about the fibre network, the state intends to be the only Internet service provider in the future and it will give it away for free to all end customers? Why not just build it and make it pay for itself by selling access to competing ISPs? Why do they need to nationalize BT for that? And if Labour want to cut household bills, wouldn't it be less risky from the business point of view to start with scraping the TV license fee, which is a form of tax anyway and finance the BBC directly from the budget / other tax revenues?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still waiting for Labour to nationalise the railways like it said it would over 20 years ago, and take the lottery from those pricks and make it a proper charity like they said they would. I know most politicians lie and that they will say anything to get elected, remember the tories saying they'd make the tunnel free. 

 

As with any pre election promises, I will believe it when I see it and it applies to them all. 

 

We should never have sold off the utilities, it made some very rich people very rich and allowed the facilitators of the sale to get pretty decent positions on boards. While some of Labour's plans are batshit crazy, at least they aren't planning on the continued killing of the weak and the poor. 

 

As for the BBC isn't it time it was made to fund itself through adverts, as far as I am aware the BBC owns 'Dave' the tv channel and that carries adverts for old BBC material that we have already paid for. Any quality BBC shows have moved to Netflix and are not really produced by the BBC anymore. I'm all for scrapping the licence tax and letting people spend that cash on other subscriptions. 

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...