RugbyRebels

Stom wrote:

morepork wrote:

Stom wrote:
How do you educate the masses that anti capitalism and anti neo capitalism are not the same thing... especially when the papers want to preserve neo capitalism.

You make a meme.

Elitist scum

Is that the meme, or just what you think of morepork? Or both?

Mellsblue wrote:We obviously have a completely different idea of what ideology is and what it leads to. I’d say ideology is a strongly held belief that, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, is still held as the best and only way. See ERG with no deal Brexit or Corbynomics with all must be treated the same.
A vision is great and very necessary but, for me, it’s not ideology and it must be pragmatic.
I’m not totally opposed to people wanting power for power’s sake. In the US it’s not worked well but in the UK there are plenty who would argue that those not listened to in decades are now getting what they have asked for due to Boris coveting no10. Assuming Bozza is true to his word.

Is Corbynomics a thing? Let alone a specific ideology? Isn't it just an approach that's more left-wing than anything seen in the UK since 1979?

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:We obviously have a completely different idea of what ideology is and what it leads to. I’d say ideology is a strongly held belief that, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, is still held as the best and only way. See ERG with no deal Brexit or Corbynomics with all must be treated the same.
A vision is great and very necessary but, for me, it’s not ideology and it must be pragmatic.
I’m not totally opposed to people wanting power for power’s sake. In the US it’s not worked well but in the UK there are plenty who would argue that those not listened to in decades are now getting what they have asked for due to Boris coveting no10. Assuming Bozza is true to his word.

Is Corbynomics a thing? Let alone a specific ideology? Isn't it just an approach that's more left-wing than anything seen in the UK since 1979?

I actually agreed with RLB on that: there's no such thing.

His policies are pretty standard.

I don't think you can call them any other names than just generic socialist policies with a touch of insanity.

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:
I think "less baggage than Corbyn" is a) a low bar to trip over and b) a fairly major thing. I'd say having a candidate who is beyond reproach and with nothing that the papers/social media can latch onto is almost more important than their political stance.

Puja

I was thinking that it might disprove the theory that the UK is ready for Corbyn brand socialism if the face changed.

Personally I feel Labour needs to tack towards the centre. Nothing wrong with being left of centre but not into anti-capitalist trench Corbyn and McDonnell dug for themselves.

How do you educate the masses that anti capitalism and anti neo capitalism are not the same thing... especially when the papers want to preserve neo capitalism.

Tell them not to get too excited one way or t'other. The qubit is poised to change the world that's only scratched the surface of automation and globalisation. And leading on from that one might wonder why the supposed party of socialism went the entire campaign not talking about UBI

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
I was thinking that it might disprove the theory that the UK is ready for Corbyn brand socialism if the face changed.

Personally I feel Labour needs to tack towards the centre. Nothing wrong with being left of centre but not into anti-capitalist trench Corbyn and McDonnell dug for themselves.

How do you educate the masses that anti capitalism and anti neo capitalism are not the same thing... especially when the papers want to preserve neo capitalism.

Tell them not to get too excited one way or t'other. The qubit is poised to change the world that's only scratched the surface of automation and globalisation. And leading on from that one might wonder why the supposed party of socialism went the entire campaign not talking about UBI

How is the qubit going to change anything? I'm afraid it's waay too abstract for me.

And UBI...does it work? It's quite unpopular in the UK, no?

morepork wrote:Jesus, it’s nothing to do with correctness, it’s habit formed of growing up where I grew up. I am not making a fucking statement over and above extending good wishes to you in this enforced break from the monotony of work.

Otherwise known as a holiday.

No trigger intended... Merry Christmas for cryin out loud!

Stom wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:We obviously have a completely different idea of what ideology is and what it leads to. I’d say ideology is a strongly held belief that, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, is still held as the best and only way. See ERG with no deal Brexit or Corbynomics with all must be treated the same.
A vision is great and very necessary but, for me, it’s not ideology and it must be pragmatic.
I’m not totally opposed to people wanting power for power’s sake. In the US it’s not worked well but in the UK there are plenty who would argue that those not listened to in decades are now getting what they have asked for due to Boris coveting no10. Assuming Bozza is true to his word.

Is Corbynomics a thing? Let alone a specific ideology? Isn't it just an approach that's more left-wing than anything seen in the UK since 1979?

I actually agreed with RLB on that: there's no such thing.

His policies are pretty standard.

I don't think you can call them any other names than just generic socialist policies with a touch of insanity.

Well if a fully paid up Corbynite says so...
Given the huge success that was our economy in the 70’s, it can only be ideology that would want to take us back there.
Corbyn’s policies are rooted in ideology. From public sector always greater than private sector to equal provision for all.
When the above leads to policies such as incredibly successful academies and free schools being brought back under local govt control, free broadband for all and £20k+ reimbursements for WASPIs earning six figures, ideology can be the only reason.
The tax levels stated within Labour’s manifesto may be pretty standard by European standards, if on the higher side, but how they are levied and where the supposed increased take is prioritised aren’t.

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:
How do you educate the masses that anti capitalism and anti neo capitalism are not the same thing... especially when the papers want to preserve neo capitalism.

Tell them not to get too excited one way or t'other. The qubit is poised to change the world that's only scratched the surface of automation and globalisation. And leading on from that one might wonder why the supposed party of socialism went the entire campaign not talking about UBI

How is the qubit going to change anything? I'm afraid it's waay too abstract for me.

And UBI...does it work? It's quite unpopular in the UK, no?

Quantum computing, essentially the skilled office jobs will now vanish as once did the manual jobs.

And UBI certainly has its opponents, but in an age of globalisation and ever increasing automation do you want the main lefty party to talk about free broadband or UBI ? Actually for my money they should all have been talking about UBI, whether pro or con

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:
How do you educate the masses that anti capitalism and anti neo capitalism are not the same thing... especially when the papers want to preserve neo capitalism.

Tell them not to get too excited one way or t'other. The qubit is poised to change the world that's only scratched the surface of automation and globalisation. And leading on from that one might wonder why the supposed party of socialism went the entire campaign not talking about UBI

How is the qubit going to change anything? I'm afraid it's waay too abstract for me.

And UBI...does it work? It's quite unpopular in the UK, no?

Why shouldn't the media talk about anti-capitalism when McDonnell, Shadow Chancellor after all, has raised it?

I think the jury is still out on UBI. Its clear that something needs to happen to provide a safety net with increased automation, equally it needs to be affordable and experience has shown that who one category of jobs becomes obsolete, others emerge.

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Is Corbynomics a thing? Let alone a specific ideology? Isn't it just an approach that's more left-wing than anything seen in the UK since 1979?

I actually agreed with RLB on that: there's no such thing.

His policies are pretty standard.

I don't think you can call them any other names than just generic socialist policies with a touch of insanity.

Well if a fully paid up Corbynite says so...
Given the huge success that was our economy in the 70’s, it can only be ideology that would want to take us back there.
Corbyn’s policies are rooted in ideology. From public sector always greater than private sector to equal provision for all.
When the above leads to policies such as incredibly successful academies and free schools being brought back under local govt control, free broadband for all and £20k+ reimbursements for WASPIs earning six figures, ideology can be the only reason.
The tax levels stated within Labour’s manifesto may be pretty standard by European standards, if on the higher side, but how they are levied and where the supposed increased take is prioritised aren’t.

And this is the key challenge for a socialist manifesto. If they are going to talk about nationalisation. monetary controls, higher taxation etc, they need to make a case that it isn't a return to the 1970s, or for that matter anywhere else where these methods have been tried and don't work. Venezuela turning into a basket case during the Corbyn era didn't help that cause. Re-nationalisation might appear popular to many voters, but not to many who would traditionally vote Conservative whose votes Labour need to win a majority.

However, Brexit offers Labour some additional flexibility. Following our EU departure, the UK government could subsidise travel. The rail service on the whole isn't that bad (one or 2 companies excepted). The big issue that many commuters have is price. Reduce that price and the moans will reduce, yet the UK government hasn't discouraged private investment which it needs.

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

Tell them not to get too excited one way or t'other. The qubit is poised to change the world that's only scratched the surface of automation and globalisation. And leading on from that one might wonder why the supposed party of socialism went the entire campaign not talking about UBI

How is the qubit going to change anything? I'm afraid it's waay too abstract for me.

And UBI...does it work? It's quite unpopular in the UK, no?

Why shouldn't the media talk about anti-capitalism when McDonnell, Shadow Chancellor after all, has raised it?

I think the jury is still out on UBI. Its clear that something needs to happen to provide a safety net with increased automation, equally it needs to be affordable and experience has shown that who one category of jobs becomes obsolete, others emerge.

Whilst yes historically we have always created new roles this might be a little different. I've got a (part time project) role that's currently looking just at cryptography and try regulation in delivery of Fintech, and where the new technologies might go is astonishing. We'll be able to automate huge additional chunks of legal services, accountancy services, regulation and compliance, christ even the banks as we know them might be gone shortly.

But we will still be creating wealth

So UBI might not be the solution, but it's a conversation we should be having now anyway given some of the inequalities in society, and it's more important again when that inequality might be about to spread much further into the middle classes. And certainly I don't see the point in being a centre, centre-left, or left leaning party and having nothing to say about UBI, you could be anti but you should be setting out what the alternative is and why that will lead to better outcomes, but to ignore it and then blather on about free broadband isn't even pissing on the margins

Also on this theme we should be talking about globalisation and automation. I'm not joking above when I say the banks days might be numbered, so too starting at the end of the road are currencies and even governments as we know them. The genie is not going back in the bottle on all this, so there's no point in Trump or Brexit populism harking on about a golden age that never even existed, we've got to look forwards, and have some idea how society is going to manage the change.

On a level more consistent with the normal board posting I see the son of Piers Morgan has faced criticism on social media after cheering the election result, highlighting how a win for Boris protects his inheritance. Frankly the criticism seems misplaced, whatever his name is only looking forward to the death of Piers like the rest of us.

Sandydragon wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:
I actually agreed with RLB on that: there's no such thing.

His policies are pretty standard.

I don't think you can call them any other names than just generic socialist policies with a touch of insanity.

Well if a fully paid up Corbynite says so...
Given the huge success that was our economy in the 70’s, it can only be ideology that would want to take us back there.
Corbyn’s policies are rooted in ideology. From public sector always greater than private sector to equal provision for all.
When the above leads to policies such as incredibly successful academies and free schools being brought back under local govt control, free broadband for all and £20k+ reimbursements for WASPIs earning six figures, ideology can be the only reason.
The tax levels stated within Labour’s manifesto may be pretty standard by European standards, if on the higher side, but how they are levied and where the supposed increased take is prioritised aren’t.

And this is the key challenge for a socialist manifesto. If they are going to talk about nationalisation. monetary controls, higher taxation etc, they need to make a case that it isn't a return to the 1970s, or for that matter anywhere else where these methods have been tried and don't work. Venezuela turning into a basket case during the Corbyn era didn't help that cause. Re-nationalisation might appear popular to many voters, but not to many who would traditionally vote Conservative whose votes Labour need to win a majority.

However, Brexit offers Labour some additional flexibility. Following our EU departure, the UK government could subsidise travel. The rail service on the whole isn't that bad (one or 2 companies excepted). The big issue that many commuters have is price. Reduce that price and the moans will reduce, yet the UK government hasn't discouraged private investment which it needs.

Well, that's kind of my point, it was atrocious PR and marketing.

Currently, Europe has a 3 tiered railway system and Britain is tier 2.

Of the tier 1 countries, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Finland, and Germany all have state railways, only Sweden uses a franchise system.

That's pretty compelling.

Energy is a similar situation, as I understand, though I haven't looked into that.

Digby wrote:On a level more consistent with the normal board posting I see the son of Piers Morgan has faced criticism on social media after cheering the election result, highlighting how a win for Boris protects his inheritance. Frankly the criticism seems misplaced, whatever his name is only looking forward to the death of Piers like the rest of us.

You just made me laugh in the middle of my office. Thanks for the weird looks.

Puja

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Well if a fully paid up Corbynite says so...
Given the huge success that was our economy in the 70’s, it can only be ideology that would want to take us back there.
Corbyn’s policies are rooted in ideology. From public sector always greater than private sector to equal provision for all.
When the above leads to policies such as incredibly successful academies and free schools being brought back under local govt control, free broadband for all and £20k+ reimbursements for WASPIs earning six figures, ideology can be the only reason.
The tax levels stated within Labour’s manifesto may be pretty standard by European standards, if on the higher side, but how they are levied and where the supposed increased take is prioritised aren’t.

And this is the key challenge for a socialist manifesto. If they are going to talk about nationalisation. monetary controls, higher taxation etc, they need to make a case that it isn't a return to the 1970s, or for that matter anywhere else where these methods have been tried and don't work. Venezuela turning into a basket case during the Corbyn era didn't help that cause. Re-nationalisation might appear popular to many voters, but not to many who would traditionally vote Conservative whose votes Labour need to win a majority.

However, Brexit offers Labour some additional flexibility. Following our EU departure, the UK government could subsidise travel. The rail service on the whole isn't that bad (one or 2 companies excepted). The big issue that many commuters have is price. Reduce that price and the moans will reduce, yet the UK government hasn't discouraged private investment which it needs.

Well, that's kind of my point, it was atrocious PR and marketing.

Currently, Europe has a 3 tiered railway system and Britain is tier 2.

Of the tier 1 countries, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Finland, and Germany all have state railways, only Sweden uses a franchise system.

That's pretty compelling.

Energy is a similar situation, as I understand, though I haven't looked into that.

Germany like it so much they did it twice?

Also, no amount of marketing will convince Workington man or woman that he/she should subsidise two season tickets for commuting for the 'average family' as Jonny McD positioned it.

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
And this is the key challenge for a socialist manifesto. If they are going to talk about nationalisation. monetary controls, higher taxation etc, they need to make a case that it isn't a return to the 1970s, or for that matter anywhere else where these methods have been tried and don't work. Venezuela turning into a basket case during the Corbyn era didn't help that cause. Re-nationalisation might appear popular to many voters, but not to many who would traditionally vote Conservative whose votes Labour need to win a majority.

However, Brexit offers Labour some additional flexibility. Following our EU departure, the UK government could subsidise travel. The rail service on the whole isn't that bad (one or 2 companies excepted). The big issue that many commuters have is price. Reduce that price and the moans will reduce, yet the UK government hasn't discouraged private investment which it needs.

Well, that's kind of my point, it was atrocious PR and marketing.

Currently, Europe has a 3 tiered railway system and Britain is tier 2.

Of the tier 1 countries, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Finland, and Germany all have state railways, only Sweden uses a franchise system.

That's pretty compelling.

Energy is a similar situation, as I understand, though I haven't looked into that.

Germany like it so much they did it twice?

Also, no amount of marketing will convince Workington man or woman that he/she should subsidise two season tickets for commuting for the 'average family' as Jonny McD positioned it.

Oops :p France.

Well, sell the rail renationalisation as the fact FirstGroup rail made almost £60m in profit. Reinvested over a 10 year period, that could improve service to people in the hardest to reach areas, without the need for additional government funding.

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:On a level more consistent with the normal board posting I see the son of Piers Morgan has faced criticism on social media after cheering the election result, highlighting how a win for Boris protects his inheritance. Frankly the criticism seems misplaced, whatever his name is only looking forward to the death of Piers like the rest of us.

You just made me laugh in the middle of my office. Thanks for the weird looks.

Puja

And people say Piers is useless, yet he'll do at least one decent thing

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
Well, that's kind of my point, it was atrocious PR and marketing.

Currently, Europe has a 3 tiered railway system and Britain is tier 2.

Of the tier 1 countries, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Finland, and Germany all have state railways, only Sweden uses a franchise system.

That's pretty compelling.

Energy is a similar situation, as I understand, though I haven't looked into that.

Germany like it so much they did it twice?

Also, no amount of marketing will convince Workington man or woman that he/she should subsidise two season tickets for commuting for the 'average family' as Jonny McD positioned it.

Oops :p France.

Well, sell the rail renationalisation as the fact FirstGroup rail made almost £60m in profit. Reinvested over a 10 year period, that could improve service to people in the hardest to reach areas, without the need for additional government funding.

Or in the hands of govt, probably not, as that is exactly what BR failed to do. Workington man/woman remembers nationalised industries and services; those who don't remember, find this proposition quite appealing. They don't see what it took to get First Group to that level of profit, and how much investment has been made in rolling stock to get there; 2.9% margin is hardly exorbitant (for the year you refer to, 2.7% 18/19), and indeed some of that was penalty payments from Network Rail, and they are forecasting lower operating margins going forward. Before I voted for anyone who was promising state ownership of businesses that aren't fundamentally broken, I'd like to see how they'd prevent them going the way of BR (say), where underinvestment and poor productivity was the default; when you won't be allowed to fail, where is the incentive to innovate and change?

I'm not saying no to this, just convince me that govt would do a better job.

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:
Germany like it so much they did it twice?

Also, no amount of marketing will convince Workington man or woman that he/she should subsidise two season tickets for commuting for the 'average family' as Jonny McD positioned it.

Oops :p France.

Well, sell the rail renationalisation as the fact FirstGroup rail made almost £60m in profit. Reinvested over a 10 year period, that could improve service to people in the hardest to reach areas, without the need for additional government funding.

Or in the hands of govt, probably not, as that is exactly what BR failed to do. Workington man/woman remembers nationalised industries and services; those who don't remember, find this proposition quite appealing. They don't see what it took to get First Group to that level of profit, and how much investment has been made in rolling stock to get there; 2.9% margin is hardly exorbitant (for the year you refer to, 2.7% 18/19), and indeed some of that was penalty payments from Network Rail, and they are forecasting lower operating margins going forward. Before I voted for anyone who was promising state ownership of businesses that aren't fundamentally broken, I'd like to see how they'd prevent them going the way of BR (say), where underinvestment and poor productivity was the default; when you won't be allowed to fail, where is the incentive to innovate and change?

I'm not saying no to this, just convince me that govt would do a better job.

Well, I've not done the detailed workings, that's not my job :p But I'd want to look at how those 6 countries manage such a good standard of rail transport.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
Well, that's kind of my point, it was atrocious PR and marketing.

Currently, Europe has a 3 tiered railway system and Britain is tier 2.

Of the tier 1 countries, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Finland, and Germany all have state railways, only Sweden uses a franchise system.

That's pretty compelling.

Energy is a similar situation, as I understand, though I haven't looked into that.

Germany like it so much they did it twice?

Also, no amount of marketing will convince Workington man or woman that he/she should subsidise two season tickets for commuting for the 'average family' as Jonny McD positioned it.

Oops :p France.

Well, sell the rail renationalisation as the fact FirstGroup rail made almost £60m in profit. Reinvested over a 10 year period, that could improve service to people in the hardest to reach areas, without the need for additional government funding.

Sadly the last time we had nationalised railways they were shit. Thats a compelling argument and BR was never as good as Virgin were.

Allowing the private sector in but subsidising the ticket rate is a good compromise.

Digby wrote:On a level more consistent with the normal board posting I see the son of Piers Morgan has faced criticism on social media after cheering the election result, highlighting how a win for Boris protects his inheritance. Frankly the criticism seems misplaced, whatever his name is only looking forward to the death of Piers like the rest of us.

Sadly, like the Government's target for carbon neutrality, Piers's death is probably too far away to be of any use to anyone. At best it will give our children a moment's cheer as the UK submerges beneath what used to be Antarctic ice.

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
And this is the key challenge for a socialist manifesto. If they are going to talk about nationalisation. monetary controls, higher taxation etc, they need to make a case that it isn't a return to the 1970s, or for that matter anywhere else where these methods have been tried and don't work. Venezuela turning into a basket case during the Corbyn era didn't help that cause. Re-nationalisation might appear popular to many voters, but not to many who would traditionally vote Conservative whose votes Labour need to win a majority.

However, Brexit offers Labour some additional flexibility. Following our EU departure, the UK government could subsidise travel. The rail service on the whole isn't that bad (one or 2 companies excepted). The big issue that many commuters have is price. Reduce that price and the moans will reduce, yet the UK government hasn't discouraged private investment which it needs.

Well, that's kind of my point, it was atrocious PR and marketing.

Currently, Europe has a 3 tiered railway system and Britain is tier 2.

Of the tier 1 countries, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Finland, and Germany all have state railways, only Sweden uses a franchise system.

That's pretty compelling.

Energy is a similar situation, as I understand, though I haven't looked into that.

Germany like it so much they did it twice?

Also, no amount of marketing will convince Workington man or woman that he/she should subsidise two season tickets for commuting for the 'average family' as Jonny McD positioned it.

Germany does have private operators as does Denmark. That tier system is also based on pure outcomes, which is quite heavily skewed by state subsidies. Comparable data is difficult to find but you can rank those countries by subsidy and it’s a similar result to the tier ranking system. The only real outlier is Sweden....which uses a franchise system. Italy is almost wholly nationalised, is subsidised far more heavily than ours and still sits in the same tier. SNF is such a large drain on govt resources that they are looking for external investors...or at least they would do if the French would stop striking for at least one day. Germany’s train operator is also heavily state subsidised.

I’m no huge fan of privatised train companies as I think privatisation only works at its best in a truly competitive market. However, this idea that state run trains are automatically better than private providers is a falsehood.

Pragmatism not ideology.

Mellsblue wrote:
I’m no huge fan of privatised train companies as I think privatisation only works at its best in a truly competitive market.

Seeing as I'm on my hobby horse having a rant about Labour having feck all to say about UBI I'm going to stay up and continue to rant, new news there I'm sure, that the Tories had nothing to say about the free market all too often being an oligopoly or even monopoly

Okay it's not just the big parties with far too little to say, and absolutely no detail, on major issues of their supposed policy areas, but they are the only two that count.

Also as an item of interest, Emma Dent Coad say she didn't reveal her diagnosis of breast cancer as she didn't want it to be a campaign issue. But if you're considering voting for someone to represent you would you want to know if they're likely to be absent or even dead? Decent points to be made on both sides, for myself I'd want to know, concluding if a candidate doesn't want to declare then don't stand

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
Oops :p France.

Well, sell the rail renationalisation as the fact FirstGroup rail made almost £60m in profit. Reinvested over a 10 year period, that could improve service to people in the hardest to reach areas, without the need for additional government funding.

Or in the hands of govt, probably not, as that is exactly what BR failed to do. Workington man/woman remembers nationalised industries and services; those who don't remember, find this proposition quite appealing. They don't see what it took to get First Group to that level of profit, and how much investment has been made in rolling stock to get there; 2.9% margin is hardly exorbitant (for the year you refer to, 2.7% 18/19), and indeed some of that was penalty payments from Network Rail, and they are forecasting lower operating margins going forward. Before I voted for anyone who was promising state ownership of businesses that aren't fundamentally broken, I'd like to see how they'd prevent them going the way of BR (say), where underinvestment and poor productivity was the default; when you won't be allowed to fail, where is the incentive to innovate and change?

I'm not saying no to this, just convince me that govt would do a better job.

Well, I've not done the detailed workings, that's not my job :p But I'd want to look at how those 6 countries manage such a good standard of rail transport.

Indeed you should .

Emily Thornberry confirms she’s running for leader.