Tories are still lying *******s

[Smartie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

OK. So what would you do?

This is actually the key question and a really interesting subject.

It's easy to suggest increasing taxes or whatever but it's really hard to come up with a practical suggestion that common people will get on board with, without fearing that they'll have all that they've worked hard for taken away from them.

I find it easy to be incensed and really hard to come up with suggestions regarding how anything can ever be improved.

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

OK. So what would you do?

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's easy to suggest increasing taxes or whatever but it's really hard to come up with a practical suggestion that common people will get on board with, without fearing that they'll have all that they've worked hard for taken away from them.

I find it easy to be incensed and really hard to come up with suggestions regarding how anything can ever be improved.

Higher, progressive taxes, more funding for the public sector, windfall taxes for companies making mega profits, better controls over companies taking profits overseas, nationalise public utilities, reinstate freedom of movement, rejoin SM & CU, phased exit of oil & gas. Explain to people that higher taxes mean better public services.

OMG I've become a socialist in my old age!

[archie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This is actually the key question and a really interesting subject.

It's easy to suggest increasing taxes or whatever but it's really hard to come up with a practical suggestion that common people will get on board with, without fearing that they'll have all that they've worked hard for taken away from them.

I find it easy to be incensed and really hard to come up with suggestions regarding how anything can ever be improved.

I agree. It's really hard. Personally I think the ballot box is supreme. If Sunak chooses to stand and isn't disbarred by aly legal restriction, then how would you stop him. And more importantly why would you stop him? It's legitimate to point out his wealth and families attitude to paying taxes. But I don’t think you could argue that the electorate wouldn't know he was mega rich. Some might like that. Unlike Johnson he's not going to scramble for dodgy loans to fund his lifestyle.

[archie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Higher, progressive taxes, more funding for the public sector, windfall taxes for companies making mega profits, better controls over companies taking profits overseas, nationalise public utilities, reinstate freedom of movement, rejoin SM & CU, phased exit of oil & gas. Explain to people that higher taxes mean better public services.

OMG I've become a socialist in my old age!

OK, but as Liz Truss found out, you can set your financial parameters, but if people don't like it then they walk. Also, some of your approaches, such as nationalising utilities could disbar membership of the single market. Examples of this would be vertical integration of the railways and energy. So it might not be as 'straigt7' as you think.

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

OK, but as Liz Truss found out, you can set your financial parameters, but if people don't like it then they walk. Also, some of your approaches, such as nationalising utilities could disbar membership of the single market. Examples of this would be vertical integration of the railways and energy. So it might not be as 'straigt7' as you think.

I don't think I ever suggested it would be straightforward.

I think the nationalised utilities thing with the EU is something that could be managed. SNCF is publicly owned isn't it?

[Glory Lurker]

We should chip away at privilege. In addition to the suggested tax rises we should abolish the monarchy. It would hopefully go some way to loosening the deference we have to the super rich.

[archie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't think I ever suffused it would be straightforward.

I think the nationalised utilities thing with the EU is something that could be managed. SNCF is publicly owned isn't it?

Yes, but there has to be a) a separation of infrastructure and services and b) you can't deny access to competitors. On railways there has been a softening of the vertical integration issue, but there are penalties for not giving access to rails to other companies. In addition there are state aid rules about companies are supported. The long term aim of liberalisation is to reduce subsidy.

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yes, but there has to be a) a separation of infrastructure and services and b) you can't deny access to competitors. On railways there has been a softening of the vertical integration issue, but there are penalties for not giving access to rails to other companies. In addition there are state aid rules about companies are supported. The long term aim of liberalisation is to reduce subsidy.

I'm open to discussion on all these issues. Once we get back into the EU.

[Kato]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

OK, but as Liz Truss found out, you can set your financial parameters, but if people don't like it then they walk. Also, some of your approaches, such as nationalising utilities could disbar membership of the single market. Examples of this would be vertical integration of the railways and energy. So it might not be as 'straigt7' as you think.

Utilities could be nationalised within the EU. There is no ban on doing so.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Kato]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yes, but there has to be a) a separation of infrastructure and services and b) you can't deny access to competitors. On railways there has been a softening of the vertical integration issue, but there are penalties for not giving access to rails to other companies. In addition there are state aid rules about companies are supported. The long term aim of liberalisation is to reduce subsidy.

If a country within the EU can demonstrate that nationalisation is necessary to meet social objectives then there is no need to allow competition or meet exorbitant market costs.

The private sector has failed in most areas at providing a good service and maintaining infrastructure when taking on public utilities. In those areas alone it seems a social objective to take it out their hands. In plain speaking they've had their go at rinsing us and they should hand the family silver back to the family.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[archie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Utilities could be nationalised within the EU. There is no ban on doing so.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

But there are issues in that you can't have a nationalised monopoly.

[Jones28]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...-a-moral-coup/

Needless to say he'll get short shrift on here but there's much to agree with I think.

What a lot of absolute ****.

[archie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If a country within the EU can demonstrate that nationalisation is necessary to meet social objectives then there is no need to allow competition or meet exorbitant market costs.

The private sector has failed in most areas at providing a good service and maintaining infrastructure when taking on public utilities. In those areas alone it seems a social objective to take it out their hands. In plain speaking they've had their go at rinsing us and they should hand the family silver back to the family.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Yes it's true that the EU has softened on this. I suspect they had to in the face of Covid and other shocks. I think it's also legitimate to highlight that the UK has adopted an economically liberal approach to interpreting EU regs. Or at least did. This is an interesting (if slightly dated) take on it https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/05/21/long-read-does-the-eu-stop-britain-from-using-state-aid-to-help-its-economy/

[Kato]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

But there are issues in that you can't have a nationalised monopoly.

Blow them out the water competitively or allow them niche markets in tricky geographical areas. Private companies want easy cash which was why they were all over our utilities in the 1980's. Competing against a decently run nationalised industry might not be for them. Private companies can also thrive in servicing nationalised industries. I don't think anyone is advocating pure communism. Its just that governments are better at some things and private companies others.

Given we are out the EU all of this is moot.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[cabbageandribs1875]

[archie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Blow them out the water competitively or allow them niche markets in tricky geographical areas. Private companies want easy cash which was why they were all over our utilities in the 1980's. Competing against a decently run nationalised industry might not be for them. Private companies can also thrive in servicing nationalised industries. I don't think anyone is advocating pure communism. Its just that governments are better at some things and private companies others.

Given we are out the EU all of this is moot.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I'm sceptical as to how indulgent the EU would be, especially members who wanted access to markets.

[Kato]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I'm sceptical as to how indulgent the EU would be, especially members who wanted access to markets.

We aren't in the EU.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[archie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

We aren't in the EU.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Yes but you want to be in the SM and CU!

[Kato]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yes but you want to be in the SM and CU!

I never said that.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[archie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I never said that.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

You're right - it was Grunt.

[Hibrandenburg]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm not sure why it would have been expected for them to do a Nazi Salute in 1932?

[Kato]

Ibrox

https://twitter.com/MLTim88/status/5...885971968?s=20

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[cabbageandribs1875]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm not sure why it would have been expected for them to do a Nazi Salute in 1932?

no idea, i just imagined it's proof-checked on their twitter page (1) London Seaward FC 💙 (@LondonSeawardFC) / Twitter


this is from the Berlin Olympics four years later i quote "this is Berlin olympics 1936, the one not saluting is Maria Kwasniewska a spear thrower, she won the bronze medal"

[Just Alf]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm not sure why it would have been expected for them to do a Nazi Salute in 1932?

Year too early?

Unless it was already a "thing" but pretty sure there were still other political parties allowed to operate at that point.

[cabbageandribs1875]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Ibrox

https://twitter.com/MLTim88/status/5...885971968?s=20

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

my goodness

[archie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

my goodness

I think it's an international agaist Germany.

[Kato]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think it's an international agaist Germany.

It is.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Just Alf]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think it's an international agaist Germany.

It is, Germans, at the time, doing party over country I think.

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This is actually the key question and a really interesting subject.

It's easy to suggest increasing taxes or whatever but it's really hard to come up with a practical suggestion that common people will get on board with, without fearing that they'll have all that they've worked hard for taken away from them.

I find it easy to be incensed and really hard to come up with suggestions regarding how anything can ever be improved.

Do you think there would be greater traction if the redress was on wealth rather than income?

I completely understand the point about wanting to make one's children's lives easier/give them more opportunities. At the same time you could argue that a lot of the structural challenges or crises we face - the cost of social care, the decades-long housing bubble - are fuelled by inherited wealth.

I agree that it is a complicated problem. For me, there is a clear and unambiguous controllable factor, separate from all this. We know the impact that learning, development and education has on life chances, and I'm not just talking about people who earn degrees as opposed to those who don't.

There is almost unquantifiable validated tesearch, from all parts of the globe, over whole lifespans, that demonstrates how childhood development from birth to around the age of three informs so much of what follows in terms of life chances. Programmes like Sure Start were really 'levelling-up' long before the Tories co-opted the term.

Maybe tackling the problem at both ends of the life cycle - by targeting inherited wealth and by targeting 0-3yrs childhood development might offer a route forward?

[archie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Do you think there would be greater traction if the redress was on wealth rather than income?

I completely understand the point about wanting to make one's children's lives easier/give them more opportunities. At the same time you could argue that a lot of the structural challenges or crises we face - the cost of social care, the decades-long housing bubble - are fuelled by inherited wealth.

I agree that it is a complicated problem. For me, there is a clear and unambiguous controllable factor, separate from all this. We know the impact that learning, development and education has on life chances, and I'm not just talking about people who earn degrees as opposed to those who don't.

There is almost unquantifiable validated tesearch, from all parts of the globe, over whole lifespans, that demonstrates how childhood development from birth to around the age of three informs so much of what follows in terms of life chances. Programmes like Sure Start were really 'levelling-up' long before the Tories co-opted the term.

Maybe tackling the problem at both ends of the life cycle - by targeting inherited wealth and by targeting 0-3yrs childhood development might offer a route forward?

That a pretty bold idea re inherited wealth. I assume you are talking about bumping up inheritance taxes?