Politics, politics, politics

[glasgowspur]

The electorate would. That's where this country's voting preferences have been since the late 70s.

I know age/time dulls the mind etc. so just to help visualise that time span - the gap between Thatcher coming into power and now is longer than the gap between WWII and Thatcher coming into power. People born in that year are the parents of kids who are going to be able to vote soon.

Think you need to check the memo settings for this site scara,
Thatcher is to blame for EVERYTHING

 

[Gutter Boy]

What was your problem with them? Weren't they sufficiently right wing for you? Always makes me laugh seeing right wing Labour politicians, Blair and Mandleson at least, being critiqued from a right wing perspective.

Just from a general perspective, the biggest thing his period in power is associated with now is unpopular foreign wars which caused all sort of bad consequences for the world. You might as well dig up Neville Chamberlain and drape an EU flag over him for the way foreign policy failure taints anything else he may have done.

From my point of view there are a few things I have particular issues with him about:

i) Wasted opportunities. Britain in 1997 was a booming, vibrant, economically sound country. He tinkled that all away on pointless public sector wages and left a flabby, lazy country that couldn't pay its own way and survived by borrowing. The incentives were just completely off. The whole concept of working tax credits is morally wrong. It's actively making people dependant on the state so they fear different economic managers.

ii) Active pro-EU-ism. No one in Britain has ever actually been pro-EU. People tolerate it to varying degrees because we were in a bit of an economic pickle after WW2 and it was a bit of a crutch. But Blair wanted to be European president and did all he could to force the country towards federalism, against its every instinct, purely to ingratiate himself with the priesthood. Blimey, he was even trying to force us into the Euro until Gordon Brown sabotaged that.

iii) Spin. Politicians in this country were dull before Blair's cult of personality. The emphasis on style over substance and prostitution to the media largely created the mass disenfranchisement we see today.

In terms of positives - Northern Ireland (although Major did a lot of the groundwork on that) is probably his standout achievement.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

The electorate would. That's where this country's voting preferences have been since the late 70s.

I know age/time dulls the mind etc. so just to help visualise that time span - the gap between Thatcher coming into power and now is longer than the gap between WWII and Thatcher coming into power. People born in that year are the parents of kids who are going to be able to vote soon.

What goes around, comes around. Who would have thought that fascism would have a resurgence? I'm so glad to see so much right wing hubris regarding the so called demise of socialism.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Just from a general perspective, the biggest thing his period in power is associated with now is unpopular foreign wars which caused all sort of bad consequences for the world. You might as well dig up Neville Chamberlain and drape an EU flag over him for the way foreign policy failure taints anything else he may have done.

From my point of view there are a few things I have particular issues with him about:

i) Wasted opportunities. Britain in 1997 was a booming, vibrant, economically sound country. He tinkled that all away on pointless public sector wages and left a flabby, lazy country that couldn't pay its own way and survived by borrowing. The incentives were just completely off. The whole concept of working tax credits is morally wrong. It's actively making people dependant on the state so they fear different economic managers.

ii) Active pro-EU-ism. No one in Britain has ever actually been pro-EU. People tolerate it to varying degrees because we were in a bit of an economic pickle after WW2 and it was a bit of a crutch. But Blair wanted to be European president and did all he could to force the country towards federalism, against its every instinct, purely to ingratiate himself with the priesthood. Blimey, he was even trying to force us into the Euro until Gordon Brown sabotaged that.

iii) Spin. Politicians in this country were dull before Blair's cult of personality. The emphasis on style over substance and prostitution to the media largely created the mass disenfranchisement we see today.

In terms of positives - Northern Ireland (although Major did a lot of the groundwork on that) is probably his standout achievement.

A booming economy in 1997? In some regions, for some grouping, but not for others? I can assure you that political spin was alive and well before Blair. So your blaming Blair for something that didn't happen...federalism. It never happened. A bit like blaming Cameron for Brexit failing, that never happened either!

There is also a fair bit of selective memory concerning Iraq too. the Tories were just as enthusiastic about commiting British troops to the war as Blair was, yet, the right consider them to be clean skins as far as this goes. Blair was wrong, but so were the Tories. .

I'd hate to see the state of you after a real Labour Party, led by a real Labour leader passed real Labour policies, like re-nationalisation of the railways or re-nationalising of utilities. You'd be positively frothing at the mouth.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Think you need to check the memo settings for this site scara,
Thatcher is to blame for EVERYTHING

Well that harbourer of fascist war criminals does bear a lot of blame. She destroyed the post war consensus. She divided the country economically, regionally and politically and it has still not recovered. A bit like William the Conqueror's harrying of the North. It put the region back a hundred years in terms of economic development. The bitch may have based her personal style of rule on his. It was about as humane.

 

[scaramanga]

What goes around, comes around. Who would have thought that fascism would have a resurgence? I'm so glad to see so much right wing hubris regarding the so called demise of socialism.

And some political ideologies die out completely. Socialism might be either one of them.

What I do know is that there has been no taste for it amongst the electorate over the past 40 years and everything about Corbyn's lack of popularity amongst anyone but students suggest there still isn't.

 

[Gutter Boy]

A booming economy in 1997? In some regions, for some grouping, but not for others? I can assure you that political spin was alive and well before Blair. So your blaming Blair for something that didn't happen...federalism. It never happened. A bit like blaming Cameron for Brexit failing, that never happened either!

There is also a fair bit of selective memory concerning Iraq too. the Tories were just as enthusiastic about committing British troops to the war as Blair was, yet, the right consider them to be clean skins as far as this goes. Blair was wrong, but so were the Tories. .

I'd hate to see the state of you after a real Labour Party, led by a real Labour leader passed real Labour policies, like re-nationalisation of the railways or re-nationalising of utilities. You'd be positively frothing at the mouth.

I support the idea of nationalising the railways and utilities actually. As long as there are the right structures to incentivise performance and dynamism.

I'm not really right or left - I prefer to consider issues individually. I'm socially liberal, politically I believe in sovereign nation states (over empires or federalism) and economically I'm both anti-capitalist and anti-socialist (I'm into degrowth at the moment). John Locke, the anabaptists and Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen are some of my main references. I'm not really into much of the micro of party politics.

 

[scaramanga]

Well that harbourer of fascist war criminals does bear a lot of blame. She destroyed the post war consensus. She divided the country economically, regionally and politically and it has still not recovered. A bit like William the Conqueror's harrying of the North. It put the region back a hundred years in terms of economic development. The bitch may have based her personal style of rule on his. It was about as humane.

Why wouldn't anyone with a half-arsed understanding of economics destroy the post-war consensus?

Any pact that has all parties acting like socialists is a very, very bad one - even Callaghan agreed with you over that!

 

[the dza]

And some political ideologies die out completely. Socialism might be either one of them.

What I do know is that there has been no taste for it amongst the electorate over the past 40 years and everything about Corbyn's lack of popularity amongst anyone but students suggest there still isn't.

I have felt that Corbyn would pave the way for someone else to take his place, another left-winger without the baggage (with more of the public friendly leadership qualities). The Overton Window isn't fixed, it used to be more to the left and has shifted rightwards since the time of Thatcher. I think politics is a pendulum and people get sick of it going too far one way or the other and over time, it swings back the other way.

It will take a new generation to lead the debate and take people with them, in much the way that Thatcher did on the right.

 

[wiziwig]

I support the idea of nationalising the railways and utilities actually. As long as there are the right structures to incentivise performance and dynamism.

I'm not really right or left - I prefer to consider issues individually. I'm socially liberal, politically I believe in sovereign nation states (over empires or federalism) and economically I'm both anti-capitalist and anti-socialist (I'm into degrowth at the moment). John Locke, the anabaptists and Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen are some of my main references. I'm not really into much of the micro of party politics.

It'll probably be to expensive to ever re-nationalise but I've long held the view, that nationalised railways and utilities, would be the way forward on the condition, that worker's strike action were limited to protest whilst away from their work duties.

However I just can't see a Trade Unionist or Labour politician ever agreeing to this so IMO, best leave it where it is.

 

[Gutter Boy]

It'll probably be to expensive to ever re-nationalise but I've long held the view, that nationalised railways and utilities, would be the way forward on the condition, that worker's strike action were limited to protest whilst away from their work duties.

However I just can't see a Trade Unionist or Labour politician ever agreeing to this so IMO, best leave it where it is.

I'm not sure about this, but don't they just need to let the franchises lapse and then they will fall back into public hands? Like happened with the East Coast line a while back. So the government don't technically need to buy them back, just gradually not renew them?

I wonder if a model might be something along the lines of universities i.e. they become third sector. So there's competition, reasonable regulation but no shareholders. So no public sector (monopoly) inefficiency, but also a sense of public service. University staff can strike, but when they do they never let it affect students because they have a strong sense of duty to them. Employee relations are always much more mature (even German-like) compared with public sector school teachers.

 

[wiziwig]

I'm not sure about this, but don't they just need to let the franchises lapse and then they will fall back into public hands? Like happened with the East Coast line a while back. So the government don't technically need to buy them back, just gradually not renew them?

I wonder if a model might be something along the lines of universities i.e. they become third sector. So there's competition, reasonable regulation but no shareholders. So no public sector (monopoly) inefficiency, but also a sense of public service. University staff can strike, but when they do they never let it affect students because they have a strong sense of duty to them. Employee relations are always much more mature (even German-like) compared with public sector school teachers.

Yes that's true , if a government is not happy with the future private investment of a new franchise it can take the railways back bit by bit.

I've not heard of the third sector you mention, will have a little read up on it. Have University Staff resorted to strike action in recent years?

 

[scaramanga]

I have felt that Corbyn would pave the way for someone else to take his place, another left-winger without the baggage (with more of the public friendly leadership qualities). The Overton Window isn't fixed, it used to be more to the left and has shifted rightwards since the time of Thatcher. I think politics is a pendulum and people get sick of it going too far one way or the other and over time, it swings back the other way.

It will take a new generation to lead the debate and take people with them, in much the way that Thatcher did on the right.

I agree with that, but I think it might be more than a generation before the Window starts shifting again.

Despite howls to the contrary, life is a lot better now for almost everyone than it was 40-50 years ago. I suspect (only theorising here) that things have to get pretty bad (like the 70s) to shift that window at any kind of pace.

Sent from my SM-G925F using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[scaramanga]

I'm not sure about this, but don't they just need to let the franchises lapse and then they will fall back into public hands? Like happened with the East Coast line a while back. So the government don't technically need to buy them back, just gradually not renew them?

I wonder if a model might be something along the lines of universities i.e. they become third sector. So there's competition, reasonable regulation but no shareholders. So no public sector (monopoly) inefficiency, but also a sense of public service. University staff can strike, but when they do they never let it affect students because they have a strong sense of duty to them. Employee relations are always much more mature (even German-like) compared with public sector school teachers.

Unionised workers, conscientious staff.

Pick one.

Sent from my SM-G925F using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[milo]

https://twitter.com/x/status/833429289131446275

 

[Gutter Boy]

Yes that's true , if a government is not happy with the future private investment of a new franchise it can take the railways back bit by bit.

I've not heard of the third sector you mention, will have a little read up on it. Have University Staff resorted to strike action in recent years?

The third sector is charities. Universities are 120 odd competiting charities. So they drive each other on in terms of competiting for students and research funding, but all the money stays in the sector and doesn't get creamed off. No gold plated public sector pensions to perpetually burden taxpayers either. And one of the biggest success stories of the UK economy, which punches massively above its weight globally.

I think there were some degree of strikes 7 or 8 years ago, but no big disruption. The odd day or two of lectures were probably rescheduled.

I think something like that could be employed for utilities. It would be harder for trains I guess as you probably can't have different operators running on the same line.

 

[Bullet]

life is a lot better now for almost everyone than it was 40-50 years ago.

Amen, life in the 70s and 80s was relentlessly grey, awful, miserable for months and years on end, compared to nowadays

 

[Gutter Boy]

https://twitter.com/x/status/833429289131446275

The problem with legal opinions is that there are as many as anyone is prepared to pay for.

 

[milo]

The problem with legal opinions is that there are as many as anyone is prepared to pay for.

Indeed but this one is from people experienced enough to suggest that there may be some legs in this. The basis of the argument that the A50 act does not constitute authorisation is an interesting one. I saw some of the discussion on Twitter when it was picked up that the Supreme Court decision required Parliament to authorise our departure from the EU and that the A50 act only gave authorisation to triggering A50. Opinion was split amongst the legal Twitter people but less so that when discussion around parliamentary approval was first mooted.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Indeed but this one is from people experienced enough to suggest that there may be some legs in this. The basis of the argument that the A50 act does not constitute authorisation is an interesting one. I saw some of the discussion on Twitter when it was picked up that the Supreme Court decision required Parliament to authorise our departure from the EU and that the A50 act only gave authorisation to triggering A50. Opinion was split amongst the legal Twitter people but less so that when discussion around parliamentary approval was first mooted.

You'd think though that after Cameron botched the referendum small print, Davis would have made sure he was watertight. The bill does spell out the words "withdraw from the EU" and not just trigger A50.