The New Leader of the Labour Party

[TheHowieLama]

2 minutes ago, viRdjil said:

For Labour to win back the Workington men votes, they need to select a left wing leader who has a track record of backing Brexit from the onset IMO.

A shitshow of a Brexit is Labours best/only hope.

[A Red]

4 minutes ago, Barry Wom said:

Personally I think you're being a little dramatic there, but I think large parts of the electorate are too. Corbyn just believes in the state running the essential aspects of daily life. I don't believe it really has anything to do with unions bringing down future Tory governments. 

 

Personally I see both sides of the nationising debate, but I feel very far from convinced corporations, who are motivated purely by profit, should be responsible for delivering something as basic and fundamental to human survival as water. I also have never agreed with the privatisation of anything that just allows for a corporate monopoly to replace the state monopoly that existed - these companies are just as inefficient as the state run programmes. Then take for instance the railways. Trenitalia have just taken over from virgin. Where is the commercial choice for me on the west coast mainline? Can i choose the operator I think does the best job? No I just get the one who took care of the Tories the most by profiteering on my dollar. 

I may well be seeing demons where they dont exist but i am very suspicious as to the motives. All those billions that could have been used to cut VAT, a tax that was mentioned in the Labour manifesto as a tax on the poor, as well as everything else it could have been spent on. More revenue could have been raised from rail/utility companies through a much simpler, quicker form of legislation.

 

I prefer small government (*scream tory cunt here*) because, whoever they are, they usually cant run anything efficiently. But as strongly as I suspect I might be right I concede that i may well be a fanny.

[Strontium]

22 minutes ago, viRdjil said:

For Labour to win back the Workington men votes, they need to select a left wing leader who has a track record of backing Brexit from the onset IMO.

 

So who is that, then?

[Barrington Womble]

29 minutes ago, viRdjil said:

For Labour to win back the Workington men votes, they need to select a left wing leader who has a track record of backing Brexit from the onset IMO.

Brexit will have nothing to do with the next election. The state of the country as a result of Brexit will. 

[SasaS]

34 minutes ago, viRdjil said:

For Labour to win back the Workington men votes, they need to select a left wing leader who has a track record of backing Brexit from the onset IMO.

I don't know why Gnasher is wasting his time arguing with people on here when a great opportunity truly beckons.

[Barrington Womble]

45 minutes ago, A Red said:

I may well be seeing demons where they dont exist but i am very suspicious as to the motives. All those billions that could have been used to cut VAT, a tax that was mentioned in the Labour manifesto as a tax on the poor, as well as everything else it could have been spent on. More revenue could have been raised from rail/utility companies through a much simpler, quicker form of legislation.

 

I prefer small government (*scream tory cunt here*) because, whoever they are, they usually cant run anything efficiently. But as strongly as I suspect I might be right I concede that i may well be a fanny.

So in my working life,  I've seen enough of large companies to say they're every bit as inefficient as state run businesses. The idea that raising taxes on companies will bring money into the Exchequer I think is a little simplistic. These companies will continue to need to make profit, it's the only reason they exist and if their shareholders don't make profit because they're paying too much tax, they'll cut corners to get them or they'll find ways to avoid tax in other areas. To me that is clear and obvious - do you want those compromises with our essential infrastructure?

 

But I think labour went too far. Nationalising the post office? What for? I don't even know what purpose it serves in the modern age except fill my post box with junk mail. Nationalising BT Openreach? Why? With 5G about to hit us, there's every chance people will stop taking their internet over wires regardless of if they're copper or fibre. I realise 5g might not hit every corner of the country, but then make it an obligation of owning a 5g license if you can't reach a uk home with 5g, then you need to be prepared to run a cable in and if you won't do that, you won't get the license. But equally the soft arses in the countryside need to stop being so precious about where they will and won't allow masts because it doesn't look nice. Tough shit.

 

Nationising key services, absolutely for me. But not everything that was a key service in the 70s is today. The railways are key to running our economy and they're a fucking shambles and are privately run. The labour manifesto was just a reflection in my opinion of the age of the leaders of the party. Worrying about shit that didn't need to be worried about. But I certainly don't think it was a big evil master plan. I'll leave that to the cunts who get educated at Eton

[Ne Moe Imya]

As an outsider looking on, I'm wondering if those of you who are there in the thick of things can answer this question - how soon do you think it's possible to reverse Brexit?

 

What I mean is, now that it's pretty clear it's going to happen, how long will it be before Labour (presumably) feels comfortable labeling it a disaster (which it's obviously going to be) and calling for a referendum to return to the EU fold? Are we talking about 2 years in the wilderness? 5? 10?

 

Or is it going to be one of those where even if it's a complete disaster for the economy and the people, no one will truly feel it's a winning political strategy to call for a reversal of the Brexit vote for a generation?

[Barrington Womble]

4 minutes ago, Ne Moe Imya said:

As an outsider looking on, I'm wondering if those of you who are there in the thick of things can answer this question - how soon do you think it's possible to reverse Brexit?

 

What I mean is, now that it's pretty clear it's going to happen, how long will it be before Labour (presumably) feels comfortable labeling it a disaster (which it's obviously going to be) and calling for a referendum to return to the EU fold? Are we talking about 2 years in the wilderness? 5? 10?

 

Or is it going to be one of those where even if it's a complete disaster for the economy and the people, no one will truly feel it's a winning political strategy to call for a reversal of the Brexit vote for a generation?

I think we have to just suck it up. What negotiating hand would we have to go back in in say 3 or 4 years? Unless it was a complete fuck up to Europe too, I reckon we're stuck with this now and we've just got to hope Johnson strikes a good trade deal. In fact sadly, I think we almost have to hope their shit Singapore off Europe thing works out because if it doesn't were royally fucked. 

[Denny Crane]

Look around the world, Trump, Johnson, Bolsanoro, Salvini who no longer deputy PM is still polling strong. A few years of Trump hasn't exactly put the Democrats in winning over the rust belt. We need a bit more introspection than swaying towards performative politics as the answer. Johnson and Trump didn't exactly win because of their oratory skills and lack of baggage. Voters want politicians to stand for something at this time not flop about being ambiguous. 

 

People underestimate the collapse in the brand of Labour that has been smashed apart by Brexit and a collapse in the connection with Labour. I know a few on here and many Labour people are hoping Brexit has been resolved. Last time i checked the IRA ceasefire ended in 1994 that influenced how some people voted in 2019. I mean opposition to tuition fees and being part of the coalition government rightly influence how people vote. Good luck with pretending that Brexit won't be a factor. I mean to some the EU is probably the flagship policy of centrism economically and culturally. Yet there isn't much love for the EU outside of 10 to 15% of the population. 

[Gnasher]

1 hour ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

So who is that, then?

Here I am

[Gnasher]

1 hour ago, SasaS said:

I don't know why Gnasher is wasting his time arguing with people on here when a great opportunity truly beckons.

You beat me to it. I shall put myself forward at once.

 

 My strategy is to spend the entire  leadership campaign calling Jess Phillips a cunt.

[Numero Veinticinco]

2 hours ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

So who is that, then?

Time for gorgeous George to finally step up?! 

[A Red]

1 hour ago, Barry Wom said:

So in my working life,  I've seen enough of large companies to say they're every bit as inefficient as state run businesses. The idea that raising taxes on companies will bring money into the Exchequer I think is a little simplistic. These companies will continue to need to make profit, it's the only reason they exist and if their shareholders don't make profit because they're paying too much tax, they'll cut corners to get them or they'll find ways to avoid tax in other areas. To me that is clear and obvious - do you want those compromises with our essential infrastructure?

 

But I think labour went too far. Nationalising the post office? What for? I don't even know what purpose it serves in the modern age except fill my post box with junk mail. Nationalising BT Openreach? Why? With 5G about to hit us, there's every chance people will stop taking their internet over wires regardless of if they're copper or fibre. I realise 5g might not hit every corner of the country, but then make it an obligation of owning a 5g license if you can't reach a uk home with 5g, then you need to be prepared to run a cable in and if you won't do that, you won't get the license. But equally the soft arses in the countryside need to stop being so precious about where they will and won't allow masts because it doesn't look nice. Tough shit.

 

Nationising key services, absolutely for me. But not everything that was a key service in the 70s is today. The railways are key to running our economy and they're a fucking shambles and are privately run. The labour manifesto was just a reflection in my opinion of the age of the leaders of the party. Worrying about shit that didn't need to be worried about. But I certainly don't think it was a big evil master plan. I'll leave that to the cunts who get educated at Eton

I too have seen and dealt with plenty of large companies, not all are inefficient which is often why they became big companies. Governments on the other hand do tend to be shite at running things. 

 

The reason for wanting widespread nationalisation, in my opinion, is ideological rather than for efficiency/extra revenue reasons. As I said, i tend to think of it being to to strengthen the party but if i really wanted to get a bit dramatic, I could say it was the first important building blocks towards communism. After all there were quite a few architects of the manifesto that could be said to have been or perhaps still communists.

 

[Barrington Womble]

26 minutes ago, A Red said:

I too have seen and dealt with plenty of large companies, not all are inefficient which is often why they became big companies. Governments on the other hand do tend to be shite at running things. 

 

The reason for wanting widespread nationalisation, in my opinion, is ideological rather than for efficiency/extra revenue reasons. As I said, i tend to think of it being to to strengthen the party but if i really wanted to get a bit dramatic, I could say it was the first important building blocks towards communism. After all there were quite a few architects of the manifesto that could be said to have been or perhaps still communists.

 

I've not really come across any big yet efficient companies, the closet I've seen at close quarters is Goldman Sachs and they're still a basket case (and only about 30k people, so not really massive). I don't know too much about these new-ish tech companies like Google and Amazon, but they don't carry the legacy of decades and sometimes hundreds of years of infrastructure legacy and decisions. But if you take another relatively modern company like Vodafone, utter shite and as bad as everything you'll meet. 

[Barrington Womble]

I see Philips has just confirmed she is running. 

[Rico1304]

2 minutes ago, Barry Wom said:

I've not really come across any big yet efficient companies, the closet I've seen at close quarters is Goldman Sachs and they're still a basket case (and only about 30k people, so not really massive). I don't know too much about these new-ish tech companies like Google and Amazon, but they don't carry the legacy of decades and sometimes hundreds of years of infrastructure legacy and decisions. But if you take another relatively modern company like Vodafone, utter shite and as bad as everything you'll meet. 

Which bits of VF?  

[A Red]

3 minutes ago, Barry Wom said:

I've not really come across any big yet efficient companies, the closet I've seen at close quarters is Goldman Sachs and they're still a basket case (and only about 30k people, so not really massive). I don't know too much about these new-ish tech companies like Google and Amazon, but they don't carry the legacy of decades and sometimes hundreds of years of infrastructure legacy and decisions. But if you take another relatively modern company like Vodafone, utter shite and as bad as everything you'll meet. 

I deal with Tescos every week on a reasonably high level and they seem quite efficient. About £100 is quite high

[Rico1304]

1 minute ago, A Red said:

I deal with Tescos every week on a reasonably high level and they seem quite efficient. About £100 is quite high

Most of the telcos I’ve dealt with have been good, Post Office and Royal Mail were absolutely hopeless.  Some new start up energy companies have some brilliant people, others seem to be making up as they go along. 

[mattyq]

7 minutes ago, Barry Wom said:

I've not really come across any big yet efficient companies, the closet I've seen at close quarters is Goldman Sachs and they're still a basket case (and only about 30k people, so not really massive). I don't know too much about these new-ish tech companies like Google and Amazon, but they don't carry the legacy of decades and sometimes hundreds of years of infrastructure legacy and decisions. But if you take another relatively modern company like Vodafone, utter shite and as bad as everything you'll meet. 

I did some work for them at their HQ in Newbury a few years back

Completely agree.. the cash they spunked up the wall on shite was shocking.

I've worked in big companies, little ones and several in between. I've also worked in local Govt and Education... by far the best run organisations I've come across have been Schools... not all by any means but most of them.

The worst were the larger companies and local Govt

[mattyq]

6 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Most of the telcos I’ve dealt with have been good, Post Office and Royal Mail were absolutely hopeless.  Some new start up energy companies have some brilliant people, others seem to be making up as they go along. 

I've worked for and closely with 4 telcos.

2 were dreadful, 1 was okish and the other quite good

[Barrington Womble]

16 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Which bits of VF?  

Dealt with loads of it. The mobile business, services business and the Telco. All shite. 

[Brownie]

Private companies are fucking shocking when it comes to efficiency. Our place makes billions in profit but they spunk money up the wall all over the place, it’s mad.

[Dr Nowt]

 

 

[Barrington Womble]

15 minutes ago, A Red said:

I deal with Tescos every week on a reasonably high level and they seem quite efficient. About £100 is quite high

I've never dealt with Tesco's (well aside from buying food), but considering some of the accountancy shenanigans there in recent years, it would seem effeciency is not something near the top of their agenda or they wouldn't be able to get away with such things. 

[Barrington Womble]

17 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Most of the telcos I’ve dealt with have been good, Post Office and Royal Mail were absolutely hopeless.  Some new start up energy companies have some brilliant people, others seem to be making up as they go along. 

 

8 minutes ago, mattyq said:

I've worked for and closely with 4 telcos.

2 were dreadful, 1 was okish and the other quite good

I do loads with telcos. I would say all the major global players are utter shite, BT, Verizon, Telstra, centrurylink/level3, gtt, colt, Tata, Voda, Telefonica I could go on. The only decent ones I've come across are niche players like EU or a whole bunch of smaller "virtuals" who hide away the pain of the big carriers and tend to be very customer focused, but there's often less than 100 of them globally providing the service.