Author Topic: General political discussion Part II  (Read 24898 times)

Offline Zeb

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,782
  • Justice.
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #920 on: October 12, 2019, 02:59:48 PM »
Not going to happen and in the very unlikely event, he did try the membership would turn on John before Jeremy you only have to look at the reaction because he did an interview with Campbell.

I agree, which is why I doubt you and your mates on twitter will get a say on him going, nor much of one on the replacement. Would think you all resigning in disgust over it would have more benefits than negatives for a new leader too.

 If the need to build an electoral coalition can't be explained or understood then the maths of it becomes inevitable for either 'the movement' or the Labour Party.
"And the voices of the standing Kop still whispering in the wind will salute the wee Scots redman and he will still walk on.
And your money will have bought you nothing."

Offline Tepid T₂O

  • MUFC bedwetter. Grass. Folically-challenged, God-piece-wearing, monkey-rubber. Jizz aroma expert. Operating at the lower end of the distribution curve...has the hots for Alan. Bastard. Fearless in transfer windows with lack of conviction
  • Lead Matchday Commentator
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 63,103
  • Dejan Lovren fan club member #1
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #921 on: October 12, 2019, 09:17:40 PM »
Labour faces bankruptcy over antisemitism..

Quote
Labour Party risks bankruptcy over antisemitism investigation, executive members fear
Exclusive: Concerns among senior figures that equalities watchdog probe could lead to multiple lawsuits, with party’s worsening finances unable to cope

Benjamin Kentish
Members of Labour’s ruling executive have privately voiced fears that the party could be bankrupted as a result of an official inquiry into antisemitism, The Independent has learnt.

Members of the National Executive Committee (NEC) have expressed concerns that a damning verdict from the equalities watchdog about Labour’s handling of antisemitic abuse could open the party up to a slew of lawsuits from Jewish members and former members, possibly resulting in hefty damages having to be paid.

 
It is understood that the issue was discussed at a recent NEC meeting, with members of the committee voicing major concerns about the fallout from the probe and who would be financially responsible.

Party bosses were asked what protections are in place for a scenario in which Labour has to cover the cost of multiple legal battles and potential payouts.

Two sources said the discussion was quickly “shut down” by party officials and allies of Jeremy Corbyn, and that the committee remains in the dark about the potential financial implications.

 
 
The fears are fuelled by the party’s worsening finances. Figures revealed this week showed that Labour made a loss of £655,000 last year, compared to a profit of £1.45m the year before, as a result of a fall in membership, rising staffing costs and losses incurred by last summer’s Labour Live event. The party's finances are likely to come under further strain if it has to fight a general election later this year.

Some NEC members are worried that the financial situation could become unmanageable if the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) finds that the party has failed to protect Jewish members.

The watchdog opened a formal investigation into Labour in August and is due to report next year. The Independent understands that multiple NEC members and other senior party figures have been asked to give evidence to the inquiry.

Amid growing concern about the outcome of the inquiry, several NEC members are understood to have asked officials what indemnity Labour has, following fears that members of the committee may have to personally foot the bill if the party runs out of money. 

They believe that, like trustees of a charity, they are legally and financially responsible for the party.


Others committee members are said to have been “stunned” when it was pointed out that they may be personally liable.

One NEC member said of the EHRC inquiry: “If it’s really bad then it opens up all sorts of possibilities and it has been raised that the whole thing could basically bankrupt the party.

“People are really worried. The party has been asked to let us know what indemnity it has because there are concerns that NEC members are going to ultimately be responsible for this.

“If we were a charity, the Charity Commission would have been all over us months ago. The EHRC is effectively playing the same role as the Charity Commission and we are effectively the trustees. That means we are legally responsible.”

A second NEC member said: “There have been concerns raised about who is legally responsible for the Labour Party. Some of us are worried about this. The grown-ups on the NEC who do not have the backing of the trade unions are all concerned. We don’t know what’s happening.

“I don’t think it’s occurred to most of the NEC that there could be financial implications, but it has to some of us. We’ve raised the question but haven’t had an answer.”

Asked if they were confident the party would be able to cope financially with whatever the EHRC concludes, the member said: “No. There is no basis for that confidence.”

Another Labour source with an understanding of the situation added: “There are fears that if the EHRC goes against the party then individual victims will have the right to go for damages from the party, and who knows where that ends up – nobody can be sure because there’s no precedent for it.

“Nobody quite knows what the liability is for the individuals NEC members. If they are liable then it makes it even more damaging that Jennie [Formby, Labour’s general secretary] and her team won’t share their understanding of what the damages might be and the possible implications. Clearly, NEC members are worried about that scenario but the conversation got completely shut down.”

Suggesting that Labour could run out of money if it had to pay extensive damages, the source continued: “Councils all around the country are having to borrow money to pay victims of historic sexual injustice. The danger is that the Labour Party will have to do the same if it is subject to victim or class action, having been found to be institutionally antisemitic.”

Some also voiced concerns that, in this scenario, there would be “another round of victim-blaming”, with Jewish people blamed by some for the party’s difficulties.

Emily Thornberry on Labour antisemitism: ‘Nobody can pretend that there isn’t an ongoing problem’
NEC members have repeatedly raised concerns that, despite their legal responsibilities, they have not been allowed to read or contribute to the party’s response to the EHRC.

The response is understood to have been drafted by party officials in conjunction with Mr Corbyn’s team, but a small handful of NEC officers decided it should be submitted without being seen or approved by the wider committee.

One NEC member said: “We don’t know whether the party has made a very solid, sound presentation to the commission or the complete opposite. There is a total ignorance of what has been said on behalf of the party.

“Most of the NEC don’t trouble themselves about these things. They haven’t worked out that they will have, potentially, as individuals, a legal responsibility.”

Labour declined to comment, although sources said the party did not believe that individual NEC members could be held personally responsible.

However, in a speech earlier this year, Baroness Hayter, Labour’s deputy leader in the House of Lords and a former NEC member and chair of the Labour Party, said: “There’s been a serious undermining of the NEC by denying its members, who have legal responsibility for the party, membership figures, financial structures, financial accounts, the submission in their names to the EHRC
I mean, it doesn’t... but sheesh.. this is awful
Bernard blows goats

With courage, nothing is impossible.

"My right arm hurts - I don't know why or who hit me."

Offline Lush is the best medicine...

  • FUCK THE POLICE - NWA
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 37,597
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #922 on: October 12, 2019, 09:39:44 PM »
I'd have thought subjects of EHRC investigations might not be near the top of Show Racism The Red Card's guest list.

https://twitter.com/SRTRC_England/status/1182749940969365505
because he’s a shameless little man

Labour faces bankruptcy over antisemitism..
I mean, it doesn’t... but sheesh.. this is awful
Good then they can fuck off back to the SWP and see how popular they really are

Offline Jiminy Cricket

  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,215
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #923 on: October 12, 2019, 09:40:30 PM »
@Tepid

It might the best thing for the party in the long run. The present rule book does not allow for reasonable people to push out the idiots. So, maybe the Party has to completely burn down before it can become a real force again.

Irrespective of whether or not members of the NRC can be held ultimately responsible, that fact that discussion is closed down, that legal opinion is held from them, and submissions in their names are presented to the EHRC without them knowing the contents is surely a very uncomfortable situation. I ask myself: would I stay in those circumstances? Though, having said that, I would have left long ago. And for this reason, I have no real sympathy for them. And not a great deal more for the Party.

Offline Tepid T₂O

  • MUFC bedwetter. Grass. Folically-challenged, God-piece-wearing, monkey-rubber. Jizz aroma expert. Operating at the lower end of the distribution curve...has the hots for Alan. Bastard. Fearless in transfer windows with lack of conviction
  • Lead Matchday Commentator
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 63,103
  • Dejan Lovren fan club member #1
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #924 on: October 12, 2019, 09:45:26 PM »
 No chance at all that it happens.  They will just borrow to pay any law suits.
Bernard blows goats

With courage, nothing is impossible.

"My right arm hurts - I don't know why or who hit me."

Offline Jiminy Cricket

  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,215
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #925 on: October 12, 2019, 10:03:27 PM »
No chance at all that it happens.  They will just borrow to pay any law suits.

I don't know. From whom do they borrow? And with what kind of leadership - I mean, will there be people leading who instill confidence? And with a rapidly declining membership and dues (worse after a negative decision from EHRC), even less ability to repay (and fight elections at the same time, I might add). It might look like a very poor bet.

Bankruptcy would draw a line under the debts. I would also expect that it would force out the whole educative. I am not sure how the rule book could be changed (to prevent similarly inclined idiots taking over). Does anyone her have any idea how bankruptcy might impact a political party in the UK? I believe (though I could be wrong) that charities cannot return from bankruptcy. If so, how analogous a political party is to a charity will be vital question. But, I guess, this would just mean that the name is lost - that would a shame; and all members of the NEC would be gone too - I do care about them one bit.

I am waffling - I am just pilling guess upon guess. Maybe someone here will be able to clarify this for me.

Offline ShakaHislop

  • Shocktrooper of the Vinny Cable Nasties
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,054
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #926 on: October 12, 2019, 11:26:51 PM »
Labour female and BAME MPs call for meeting with Jeremy Corbyn over deselection

Labour BAME MPs have called for a meeting with Jeremy Corbyn on Tuesday over concerns about the deselection of BAME candidates.

They are also concerned by a number of other selection battles that have turned nasty, involving BAME candidates. A big row is afoot.

A Labour source has said: "Momentum/leadership have totally destroyed the selection rules and can't even protect their own people."

Digging further, Kate Osamor's local party is a complex mix of rivalries, with ethnic divisions.

A Labour source suggests that with the trigger threshold set at a third of branches, it's easy for one faction to bring a candidate down and "the main victims are BAME and female candidates".

The sample size is small, but there is an argument that a pattern is emerging.

Margaret Hodge, Diana Johnson, Kate Osamor and Emma Lewell-Buck are all triggered, all female or BAME with Virendra Sharma also facing one in his constituency.

Roger Godsiff is the only white man to be triggered.

And I'm also hearing that the next candidate to be triggered could be Rupa Huq.

Again, a BAME woman.

It's too soon to draw empirical conclusions, but if the aim of re-selections is to increase diversity of candidates (as Momentum says), then so far it may not be having the desired effect.

Labour MPs including Lucy Powell and Jess Phillips have reacted to the comments that the Labour Party is targeting women, saying they saw this coming more than a year ago.

Jess Phillips, Labour MP for Birmingham Yardley, said on social media: "The women's PLP have asked to meet with party bosses over the issue which appears to be targeting women.

"We warned this would happen, I'm not glad we were right," she added.

ITV News has contacted the Labour Party for a comment.

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-10-12/labour-bame-mps-call-for-meeting-with-jeremy-corbyn-over-deselection/

Quote
Osamor was one of 36 Labour MPs to nominate Jeremy Corbyn as a candidate in the Labour leadership election of 2015.[19] She was appointed as a Parliamentary Private Secretary to Corbyn in September 2015.[20]

On 14 January 2016, Osamor was appointed by Corbyn to the Opposition frontbench as Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities.[21] On 27 June 2016, after the resignations of numerous members of Labour's ministerial team due to disquiet over Corbyn's leadership, Osamor was appointed Shadow Secretary of State for International Development.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Osamor

Offline Lush is the best medicine...

  • FUCK THE POLICE - NWA
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 37,597
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #927 on: October 12, 2019, 11:29:27 PM »
Kate Osamor should be fun in that deselection meeting, good thing she never gave up her council house!

Offline Lush is the best medicine...

  • FUCK THE POLICE - NWA
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 37,597
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #928 on: October 12, 2019, 11:57:10 PM »

Offline Tepid T₂O

  • MUFC bedwetter. Grass. Folically-challenged, God-piece-wearing, monkey-rubber. Jizz aroma expert. Operating at the lower end of the distribution curve...has the hots for Alan. Bastard. Fearless in transfer windows with lack of conviction
  • Lead Matchday Commentator
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 63,103
  • Dejan Lovren fan club member #1
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #929 on: October 12, 2019, 11:58:19 PM »
https://twitter.com/lukeakehurst/status/1183137270158811140?s=21

This would be interesting if he’s right
It won’t happen. It’s been in quite large debt in the past and there weren’t really any problems. 
Bernard blows goats

With courage, nothing is impossible.

"My right arm hurts - I don't know why or who hit me."

Offline Lush is the best medicine...

  • FUCK THE POLICE - NWA
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 37,597
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #930 on: October 13, 2019, 12:02:55 AM »
It won’t happen. It’s been in quite large debt in the past and there weren’t really any problems. 
not bankrupt tho

Offline Zeb

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,782
  • Justice.
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #931 on: October 13, 2019, 02:44:52 AM »
NEC can levy a surcharge on members to cover debts if absolutely needed. Extreme stuff though. Seeing former NEC members and party staffers confirming that their understanding was the NEC could be held individually financially responsible if they mucked up on an epic scale. Property is theft, comrades.*

Issue is oversight and responsibility of NEC not to just nod through stuff because 'Jez said so' or 'Jez would like it', isn't it? If you've no idea whether the party has submitted a detailed plan on how it intends to address a problem or a link to The Lobby and a note saying 'Seen this?' then maybe, just maybe, there's too many on the NEC who haven't thought through an awful lot of consequences. I mean, if the party has halved its vote in two years, had the worst national election result in a century, and are being told the reason for losing a lot of money is that they're now in 'permanent campaign' mode (which is, apparently, 'very successful') then the evidence of the counterfactual of what it would be like otherwise must have been pretty amazing. Assuming they asked about such things...

Most curious thing about it all though is that there's no real pushback from Labour on the implication that the EHRC are going to be pretty damning about what's been going on.

edit - * this is one example of where it's popped up in the past.

Quote
Some believe Pitt-Watson's decision to stand down [in the time between being announced as General Secretary and starting the job in 2008] had less to do with delays and more to do with fears that a man with personal wealth could become personally liable for any Labour debts as chief accounting officer for the party.

Labour is servicing a £13.5m overdraft from the Co-op Bank, included in a total of outstanding borrowings which stands at £20m. The main difficulty for the party is a lack of fundraising capacity.

Grauniad
« Last Edit: October 13, 2019, 03:13:51 AM by Zeb »
"And the voices of the standing Kop still whispering in the wind will salute the wee Scots redman and he will still walk on.
And your money will have bought you nothing."

Offline idontknow

  • i_know_use's_for_apostrophes',,_see
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,642
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #932 on: October 13, 2019, 08:47:51 PM »
I don't really have another avenue to ask UK based people if I'm wrong.  While not your fault it is what it is. 

Not really sure what you mean about conflating criticism with money. 

I'm asking questions to clarify why something that seems so simple to me in practice is not.  Johnson and the Tories seem to not enjoy majority backing while having no policies that a majority of the people could get behind.  So as an opposition party it's pretty clear cut that you embrace those majority agreed policy positions and you ride that to victory.  Instead it's time to purge the party of non-believes are adopt Brexit friendly policies?  What?
In UK, the Tories win. Fuck knows why, but that's the default position. Thatcher - well, you know her, she was into screwing the poorest, the most vulnerable, and giving massive help to the worst, richest, greediest, sickest fuckers of society, and the media supported her in this, with glee, and everybody got rich milking the country, letting people die. Fuck sake, it's horrible. Finally, after 18 vile years of Tory despotism, Tony Blair got in. Thank fucking god, except he thought he was fucking god - adjective works in both ways. Blair pallied up with Bush, to destroy as much of the world as he could,to enrich himself as much as he could, and to sell-off as much as he could.
The Toriesgot back in under Cameron, decided to start murdering people - DWP, Atos, murdering the sick and disabled, the helpless, the homeless, and vulnerable. Cos them c*nts aren't rich enough already.And Labour, under Ed Miliband, went to an election agreeing with them, not a single objection to letting the banks and big fuck-off Richard Bransons gorge themselves on people's death.
Labour had an election, Corbyn won, because he had a brighter team, who went on Facebook, on social media, around the country, not to the cliques and clicks,the magnates and the billionaire media. Renationalise what was ours, make foodbanks a thing of the past to be held in shame, hope for everyone in this country.
But he's not electorally acceptable? He's done better than any of the dickheads put against him.

There's lots of places you can find out and ask. Reddit, Quora. Put your question in a search engine.

If you put your trust in business to fix society, well, you'll fuck Corbyn off. If you think a government's first,prime, and ultimately only duty is toward the well-being of its citizens and the people in its care,jurisdiction, whatever, then maybe you'd give Corbyn longer look.

As for whatever follows me writing this, I could write a list of who, and what they'll likely say. It's a veryclosed shop in here.

I appreciate you wanting to find out,  Brando, and I don't know howold you are, so I gave a brief background of Thatcher. Do you know what happened to the vulnerable in America under Reagan? And subsequent to his actions. Clinton disappeared a whole load of people on welfare, I remember those quotes.

And one last thing. Thatcher, brave, iron lady? Never believe that, she was a vicious coward backed by police power.

Now go and watch some Bill Hicks, if you get as stressed reading this as I have writing it,  here's Tom with the weather. :)
It is a machine. It is more stupid than we are. It will not stop us from doing stupid things.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthreadw.php?t=2084026

Offline west_london_red

  • Knows his stuff - pull the udder one! RAWK's Dairy Queen.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,378
  • watching me? but whose watching you watching me?
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #933 on: October 13, 2019, 09:52:43 PM »
not bankrupt tho

Probably a lot of wishful thinking from all involved as usual. This isn’t the US, so I doubt we’re talking about ridiculous payouts and considering Unite has an income of £200 million plus, UNISON gets over £150 million I have a good idea where the money would come from if the party was about to become bankrupt.

Offline Jiminy Cricket

  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,215
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #934 on: October 13, 2019, 11:17:31 PM »
https://twitter.com/lukeakehurst/status/1183137270158811140?s=21

This would be interesting if he’s right

Does anyone know how many full-members there are in the Labour Party? I mean, membership discounting the Three-pounders since they are, apparently (according to comment in that Tweet) the only ones who might be liable in addition to the NEC.

Offline Zeb

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,782
  • Justice.
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #935 on: October 14, 2019, 12:42:12 AM »
As for whatever follows me writing this, I could write a list of who, and what they'll likely say. It's a veryclosed shop in here.

Bolton and Pitts' Corbynism: A Critical Approach is a useful left wing analysis of what's happening - it complements Seymour's excellent book on Corbyn. Funnily enough they were predicting some posts on here a fair while back.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2019, 03:03:35 AM by Zeb »
"And the voices of the standing Kop still whispering in the wind will salute the wee Scots redman and he will still walk on.
And your money will have bought you nothing."

Offline Brissyred

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 572
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #936 on: October 14, 2019, 03:29:58 AM »

Offline Circa1892

  • Real Madrid 0 - 1 Liverpool - Parc des Princes, 27th May 1981 Remember?... About as intimidating as Bambi.
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,602
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #937 on: October 14, 2019, 10:28:45 AM »
https://news.sky.com/story/corbyn-allies-fear-under-the-radar-power-grab-as-labour-leaders-office-undergoes-major-shake-up-11835507

Interesting. I wonder if one of the senior comms aides at the risk of the chop is Dear Seumas...

Offline Indomitable_Carp

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 749
  • From the depths of Sevvy Park lake
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #938 on: October 14, 2019, 12:09:28 PM »
Watching that whole farce of a Queens Speech ceremony just makes me despair. THIS is the crumbling, creaking state apparatus that we are relying on to implement the radical reforms needed in this country to address the climate crisis?

Brexit I quite frankly no longer give a shite about (and this is coming from someone moving to mainland Europe next week). Our kids and grandkids won't be judging us on this irrelevant sideshow.

Offline filopastry

  • seldom posts but often delivers
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,526
  • Let me tell you a story.........
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #939 on: October 14, 2019, 12:19:01 PM »
Watching that whole farce of a Queens Speech ceremony just makes me despair. THIS is the crumbling, creaking state apparatus that we are relying on to implement the radical reforms needed in this country to address the climate crisis?

Brexit I quite frankly no longer give a shite about (and this is coming from someone moving to mainland Europe next week). Our kids and grandkids won't be judging us on this irrelevant sideshow.


I don't see how exactly the UK government could single handedly resolve the climate crisis (or even make a particularly massive contirbution towards resolving it) even if the political will was there.

It is an issue which will have to be solved at an international level and will require internal cooperation and enforcement at levels far beyone where we are now, in that sense Brexit is a move in exactly the opposite direction to what is required.


Offline ShakaHislop

  • Shocktrooper of the Vinny Cable Nasties
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,054
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #940 on: October 14, 2019, 12:49:06 PM »
How much does the state opening of Parliament cost the taxpayer?

Offline redmark

  • RAWK Scribe
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 19,277
    • Save Liverpool FC
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #941 on: October 14, 2019, 12:52:07 PM »
How much does the state opening of Parliament cost the taxpayer?
According to the Mirror, £220k. According to the Express, it's John Bercow's fault.
We Are Liverpool.

Offline Indomitable_Carp

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 749
  • From the depths of Sevvy Park lake
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #942 on: October 14, 2019, 12:52:12 PM »
I don't see how exactly the UK government could single handedly resolve the climate crisis (or even make a particularly massive contirbution towards resolving it) even if the political will was there.

It is an issue which will have to be solved at an international level and will require internal cooperation and enforcement at levels far beyone where we are now, in that sense Brexit is a move in exactly the opposite direction to what is required.

You are absolutely correct regarding international cooperation.

I am hoping we somehow end up remaining or going out on a 'soft Brexit'. But as for Brexit hindering attempts to combat climate change and hinder international cooperation on the issue - I think that depends on how it is handled. I don't see that the EU's institutions are any more capable of acting with the speed and decisiveness needed.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a pessimist. I think Brexit will most likely be handled terribly. But because I also think we will be unlikely to take the action needed to avert the climate crisis (on a national or international level), I am in some ways coming around to the idea that we take the pain of Brexit and then set about creating a more self-sustaining (albeit poorer) island that will better be able to weather the strong possibility of civilizational turmoil. A good place to start would be fucking off the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (over 25% of the EU budget), and implementing a sweeping agricultural revolution capable of better sustaining this island.

Not going to happen. But it won't happen if we stay in the EU either. Either way we're fucked. I am at the stage of my life now where me and my missus need to decide if we're going to have kids. Brexit does not factor into that. What the planet will be like in the lifetimes of my potential kids (and that of my young niece) definitely does. In fact my main thinking regarding the future revolves around whether we would be better off in Chile (her home country) or the UK if things go to shit.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2019, 01:12:13 PM by Indomitable_Carp »

Offline filopastry

  • seldom posts but often delivers
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,526
  • Let me tell you a story.........
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #943 on: October 14, 2019, 01:40:32 PM »
You are absolutely correct regarding international cooperation.

I am hoping we somehow end up remaining or going out on a 'soft Brexit'. But as for Brexit hindering attempts to combat climate change and hinder international cooperation on the issue - I think that depends on how it is handled. I don't see that the EU's institutions are any more capable of acting with the speed and decisiveness needed.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a pessimist. I think Brexit will most likely be handled terribly. But because I also think we will be unlikely to take the action needed to avert the climate crisis (on a national or international level), I am in some ways coming around to the idea that we take the pain of Brexit and then set about creating a more self-sustaining (albeit poorer) island that will better be able to weather the strong possibility of civilizational turmoil. A good place to start would be fucking off the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (over 25% of the EU budget), and implementing a sweeping agricultural revolution capable of better sustaining this island.

Not going to happen. But it won't happen if we stay in the EU either. Either way we're fucked. I am at the stage of my life now where me and my missus need to decide if we're going to have kids. Brexit does not factor into that. What the planet will be like in the lifetimes of my potential kids (and that of my young niece) definitely does. In fact my main thinking regarding the future revolves around whether we would be better off in Chile (her home country) or the UK if things go to shit.


The only thing I will say is that we are likely to have a lot more influence over policies which deliver much more significant reductions in emissions if we are inside the EU than if we are outside (obviously not really an issue unless we are actually going to push for those kind of policies).

If we are outside the EU it is hard to see how anything we does has a great deal of impact, our diplomatic influence will be vastly reduced. The EU is at least actually a large enough body to start having some meaningful influence on that issue on the world stage.

Equally from a domestic politics point of view, I don't think you will find enough people being willing to support the kind of truly radical policies you would obviously support, to make the country signifcantly poorer and more sustainable (but still not really addressing climate change itself on a global basis), if you can't get elected the whole policy platform becomes pretty redundant.

Humanity as a species tends to be pretty selfish and short termist when given the choice.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2019, 01:44:00 PM by filopastry »

Offline Trada

  • Fully paid up member of the JC cult. Ex-Tory boy. Corbyn's Chief Hagiographer. Sometimes hasn't got a kloop.
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 21,187
  • Trada
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #944 on: October 14, 2019, 02:00:12 PM »
https://news.sky.com/story/corbyn-allies-fear-under-the-radar-power-grab-as-labour-leaders-office-undergoes-major-shake-up-11835507

Interesting. I wonder if one of the senior comms aides at the risk of the chop is Dear Seumas...

Whats interesting is they are calling it a coup when it was Jeremy that asked for the review.
“I carry them with me: what they would have thought and said and done. Make them a part of who I am. So even though they’re gone from the world they’re never gone from me.”

Miss you Tracy more and more every day xxx

Offline Trada

  • Fully paid up member of the JC cult. Ex-Tory boy. Corbyn's Chief Hagiographer. Sometimes hasn't got a kloop.
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 21,187
  • Trada
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #945 on: October 14, 2019, 02:01:00 PM »
She will so prop up the Tories after the next election if she can.

“I carry them with me: what they would have thought and said and done. Make them a part of who I am. So even though they’re gone from the world they’re never gone from me.”

Miss you Tracy more and more every day xxx

Offline Bobsackamano

  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 402
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #946 on: October 14, 2019, 03:05:34 PM »
She will so prop up the Tories after the next election if she can.



Mystic Trada!

There's Jo Swinson standing near Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson before walking into parliment, that means shes definately evil! (Lets not mention that Dianne Abbott is also in shot)

Offline Al 666

  • Mo Money, Mo Problems to invent. Number 1 is Carragher. Number 2 is Carragher. Number 3 is Carragher. Number 4 is Carragher. Likes to play God in his spare time.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 19,292
  • JFT 96
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #947 on: October 14, 2019, 04:24:06 PM »
She will so prop up the Tories after the next election if she can.



The only reason there will be an opportunity to prop up the Tories is because your beloved Corbyn is so bloody inept.
One thing does need to be said: in the post-Benitez era, there was media-led clamour (but also some politicking going on at the club) to make the club more English; the idea being that the club had lost the very essence of what it means to be ‘Liverpool’. Guillem Ballague 18/11/10

Offline idontknow

  • i_know_use's_for_apostrophes',,_see
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,642
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #948 on: October 14, 2019, 09:31:26 PM »
Bolton and Pitts' Corbynism: A Critical Approach is a useful left wing analysis of what's happening - it complements Seymour's excellent book on Corbyn. Funnily enough they were predicting some posts on here a fair while back.
Thank you, Zeb, I'll look that up.
It is a machine. It is more stupid than we are. It will not stop us from doing stupid things.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthreadw.php?t=2084026

Offline Red-Soldier

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 7,044
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #949 on: October 14, 2019, 09:36:40 PM »
On much you trust [X] to make the right decisions on Brexit:

Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson:
Trust: 32%
Do not trust: 60%

Jeremy Corbyn:
Trust: 16%
Do not trust: 76%

Parliament:
Trust: 14%
Do not trust: 77%

via YouGov, 09 - 10 Oct

Offline ShakaHislop

  • Shocktrooper of the Vinny Cable Nasties
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,054
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #950 on: October 14, 2019, 09:39:20 PM »
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1181502386004746242

EXCL John McDonnell and Len McCluskey in 'explosive' clash over Labour shake-up

John McDonnell clashed with Len McCluskey in the wake of a major shake-up of Jeremy Corbyn's office, PoliticsHome has learned.

The pair met last Thursday to discuss Labour's plans for the next general election.

But it is understood that the conversation "erupted" after it turned to changes made to the senior team around Mr Corbyn.

Just days before, Karie Murphy, the Labour leader's chief of staff and a close ally of Unite boss Mr McCluskey, left his office to take up a new post at the party's HQ.

She is keeping her title, but her role will be taken over by former civil servant Helene Reardon Bond, who was recruited last week.

Amy Jackson, Mr Corbyn's political secretary, also left his parliamentary office, along with trade union liaison official Joe Bradley.

Labour sources have claimed that Mr McDonnell - whose close friend Lord Kerslake informed Ms Murphy of her change of role - was behind the reorganisation, although that has been denied by his aides.

The Shadow Chancellor is known to be at odds with many of those close to Mr Corbyn, particularly over Labour's approach to Brexit.

He has said he is open to the possibility of holding a fresh EU referendum before the next election, something the Labour leader opposes.

On Mr McDonnell's meeting with Mr McCluskey, one source said: "The pair of them erupted. It was explosive and their differences were not resolved."

A source close to the Shadow Chancellor confirmed that the meeting took place, but insisted it was the latest in a series of routine discussions they have been having on election planning.

A spokeswoman for Mr McCluskey refused to comment.

Meanwhile, PoliticsHome has also learned that morale has plummeted in Mr Corbyn's office amid claims that Mr McDonnell is behind plans for a complete overhaul of the way it is run.

Leaked emails seen by Sky News revealed that Lord Kerslake will carry out "informal" interviews with 37 members of staff.

One insider said: "It's like nothing I have ever experienced before. John McDonnell has really had his fill of a lot of the people around Jeremy."

Following Ms Murphy's removal from Mr Corbyn's office last week, a Labour source insisted she had not been demoted.

"As we gear up for a general election, Labour is bolstering our team to take on the Tories and ensure a Labour government can hit the ground running with our programme to transform the country," they said.

"Karie Murphy will strengthen the election operation at Labour HQ to drive the general election campaign and Helene Reardon Bond will bring her experience and expertise to the leader’s office to step up our preparations for government."

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/john-mcdonnell/news/107251/excl-john-mcdonnell-and-len

Offline ShakaHislop

  • Shocktrooper of the Vinny Cable Nasties
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,054
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #951 on: October 14, 2019, 09:44:28 PM »
Labour's nationalisation price tag would start at £196bn, CBI says

Labour's nationalisation plans would cost at least £196bn, according to the Confederation of British Industry.

The employers' group said the up-front cost of taking control of the water and energy utilities, train firms and Royal Mail was equivalent to all income tax paid by UK citizens in a year.

It was the combined total of the £141bn health budget, and the £61bn spent on education, analysis by the CBI said.

A Labour Party spokesman said it was "incoherent scaremongering" by the CBI.

John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has said that nationalisation would be cost-neutral as the companies' profits would cover the cost of borrowing needed to finance it.

In addition, the party has said that rail nationalisation, for example, would be hugely popular with travellers tired of poor services. And bringing National Grid back under state control would be part of plans to create a National Energy Agency to help usher in Labour's proposed Green Industrial Revolution.

The CBI's report estimated there could be a 10.7% increase in debt from bringing industries back into public ownership.

This would raise debt levels to 94% of GDP, the highest point since the 1960s, and would cost about £2bn a year, according to the study.

It also said that under Labour's plans, savers and pensioners could suffer an estimated £9bn loss to their holdings, which translates into £327 for every household in the country.

The CBI bases its analysis on the nationalisation of:

    Nine water and sewerage companies and seven water-only companies in England
    National Grid, and the electricity transmission and distribution networks
    Rail rolling stock
    Royal Mail

The report said the confidence of international investors in the UK would be "severely hit" if Labour refused to pay full market value for the industries.

Although the analysis said that the state-owned assets would increase in value and there would be potential revenues generated, the study's focus was on costs rather than estimates of potential benefits.

Rain Newton-Smith, the CBI's chief economist, called the price tag "eye-watering". And she said that £196bn was only the starting point.

"It doesn't take into account the maintenance and development of the infrastructure, the trickle-down hit to pension pots and savings accounts, or the impact on the country's public finances.

"There are so many other genuine priorities for public spending right now, from investing in our young people to the transition to low carbon economy and connecting our cities and communities.

"These issues are what keep businesses up at night and what they want to see the government get on with addressing. Nationalisation would waste time, energy and public money."

A Labour spokesman said the CBI was more interested in protecting shareholders than in creating a fair economy. He accused the organisation of "incoherent scaremongering".

The spokesman said: "It is disappointing that the CBI seems incapable of having a grown-up conversation about public ownership - which is hugely popular, and common across Europe. It sadly reveals that they are more interested in protecting shareholders than in creating a fair economy."

Last week, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, suggested that focusing on the upfront cost of Labour's plans was the wrong approach. "Economically what matters is whether these assets would be better managed by the public or the private sector," it said.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50036463

Offline ShakaHislop

  • Shocktrooper of the Vinny Cable Nasties
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,054
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #952 on: October 14, 2019, 09:49:37 PM »
Government dodges 'full fibre for all by 2025' pledge

The UK government has opted not to pursue a target of delivering full-fibre broadband to all households by 2025.

Prime Minster Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson proposed the target while campaigning to become Tory party leader - but the pledge was criticised by industry insiders.

Instead, ministers are now seeking to roll out "gigabit-capable" speeds and have not given a specific end date.

The briefing details were provided following the Queen's Speech.

The speech referenced a planned Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill that aims to "accelerate the delivery of fast, reliable and secure broadband networks to millions of homes".

Since the prime minister lacks a majority of MPs in the House of Commons, the bill is unlikely to be passed into law by this Parliament. But it signals what is likely to become a Conservative Party manifesto commitment for the next general election.

Mr Johnson had previously called Theresa May's government's promise to deliver full-fibre broadband to everyone by 2033 "laughably unambitious".

"If we want to unite our country and our society, we should commit now to delivering full fibre to every home in the land not in the mid-2030s - but in five years at the outside," he added.

"Of course they will say it can't be done... but it can."

The broadband infrastructure industry's actual reaction was to say the goal was possible but only if the government made radical changes to planning laws among other changes.

Individual companies also questioned whether it really made sense to guarantee an optical cable connection to each home when other alternatives were available that could deliver gigabit-plus speeds at lower costs.

O2's chief executive called the idea of digging up land and laying down cables to even the remotest of homes "just nonsensical" when the last leg of such connections could be provided wirelessly via 5G at lower cost.

And Virgin Media urged the government to take account of the fact it could deliver 1Gbps speeds by changing how it transmitted data over copper-based coaxial cables already linked to many properties.

The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has now apparently listened to these concerns and chosen to pursue a tech-agnostic approach.

Rather than stipulating buildings need to be connected to exchanges by their own fibre links, the focus is on promising gigabit speeds, which the DCMS says should allow a high-definition feature film to be downloaded in under 45 seconds.

The legislation also promises to:

    include an earlier pledge to make it easier for broadband providers to install the necessary equipment in blocks of flats when landlords fail to respond to their requests
    require "virtually all" new-build developments to include gigabit-capable connections

Rather than commit to a 2025 deadline, however, the government says it will achieve nationwide coverage "as soon as possible".

The trade association representing the UK's broadband industry said it still wanted politicians to go further.

"The Queen's Speech gave some useful clarity about measures government intends to put in place," Andrew Glover, who chairs the Internet Service Providers' Association, told BBC News.

"However, this legislation alone is not enough to achieve the government's target.

"New builds and wayleaves [right of access] legislation and the existing funding commitments are only the first step to achieving nationwide coverage of gigabit-capable broadband and industry still needs broader support from government to ensure that the whole country is covered."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50042720

Offline ShakaHislop

  • Shocktrooper of the Vinny Cable Nasties
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,054
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #953 on: October 14, 2019, 10:02:04 PM »
EXCL Labour MPs tell party chairman Ian Lavery they will not back a snap election

Ian Lavery told a meeting of Labour MPs and peers that the party has "never been more ready" for the country to go to the polls.

But a number of backbenchers told a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party that they could not support an election before a second EU referendum.

Some also claimed that Jeremy Corbyn remained unpopular with voters and would lead the party to another defeat.

One MP present said: "We had 15 minutes from Lavery telling us we are election ready and an hour of MPs saying we are not."

Mr Lavery, who believes an election must take place before another referendum, told the meeting that winter weather meant that an election at some point in the next three months would be "mayhem".

He said there was little Labour could do to prevent it taking place - and insisted they were in good shape to fight an election whenever it happens.

But Brighton and Hove MP Peter Kyle asked him why Labour was consistently polling behind an unpopular Conservative government.

Meanwhile, Bermondsey and Old Southwark MP Neil Coyle asked if Jeremy Corbyn's picture could be left off leaflets in areas where he is a turn-off for voters, and replaced by photographs of local community figures.

One MP told PoliticsHome: "Lavery just read out a list of things we will do, like deliver leaflets, direct mails and knocking on doors. Genius."

The PLP clashes once again highlighted the deep splits within Labour over when an election should take place.

Mr Corbyn last week had been due to say the party was "champing at the bit" for an election, but dropped it from a speech.

John McDonnell told a meeting of the Shadow Cabinet last week that an early election was a "trap" being laid by the Tories, while Tom Watson, Emily Thornberry and Keir Starmer have all said they would rather have a second referendum first.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/107283/excl-labour-mps-tell-party-chairman-ian-lavery

Online OOS

  • Jordan Henderson fanclub member #4
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,920
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #954 on: October 14, 2019, 10:03:02 PM »
If UK does leave the custom union, single market ect ... and Scotland gets independence, surely that would mean a hard border between England and Scotland?
"I think the most important thing about music is the sense of escape." - Thom Yorke

Offline Just Elmo?

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,575
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #955 on: October 14, 2019, 10:21:25 PM »
If UK does leave the custom union, single market ect ... and Scotland gets independence, surely that would mean a hard border between England and Scotland?

If Scotland joined the EU yes. A more sensible router for Scotland in that scenario would be to join EFTA/EEA until such time as the UK/EU trade deal is sorted satisfactorily. In that scenario, Scotland would be able to negotiate its own trade deal with rUK.

Even if there was a hard border though, it would not be ideal but it wouldn't have nearly the same issues as the Irish border. There isn't the history of troubles and there are far fewer border crossings to manage. There is very little traffic in the grans scheme of things on the main roads that cross the border.

Offline Zeb

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,782
  • Justice.
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #956 on: October 14, 2019, 11:21:31 PM »
Labour's nationalisation price tag would start at £196bn, CBI says

Nah. CBI needs to make its mind up. Are Labour paying shareholders a fair price, or are they going to confiscate everything and beggar people? Can't be both. Also 'OMG government are buying things which are worth something' isn't really a horror story. Not that Labour are immune to wanting things both ways - you can make the argument that profits will mean assets eventually pay for themselves or you can promise lots of things in addition to that which will need government to subsidise the nationalised whatever.
"And the voices of the standing Kop still whispering in the wind will salute the wee Scots redman and he will still walk on.
And your money will have bought you nothing."

Offline ShakaHislop

  • Shocktrooper of the Vinny Cable Nasties
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,054
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #957 on: October 14, 2019, 11:26:02 PM »
EXCL Labour MPs tell party chairman Ian Lavery they will not back a snap election

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/107283/excl-labour-mps-tell-party-chairman-ian-lavery

Labour MPs Warn Party Is ‘Nowhere Near Ready’ For Election After PLP Briefing

Labour MPs have claimed the party is “nowhere near ready” for a general election after campaign chiefs presented their latest plans for taking on Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson in a snap poll.

Backbenchers hit out following a presentation by joint election co-ordinators Ian Lavery and Andrew Gwynne at the weekly meeting of the parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) in the Commons on Monday night.

The pair faced questions over the lack of information on target seats, campaign funding, Facebook strategy and the huge cost of ‘community organisers’ hired by Jeremy Corbyn’s team in the past three years.

Party chair Lavery told the meeting Labour had “never been more ready for an election” in its entire history.

But he was accused of failing to provide reassurance after he said that it was difficult to predict turnout in different seats because Brexit was still an unknown quantity, one of those present said. Some others said a second referendum had to be held before any election.

During the meeting, one MP told Lavery and Gwynne: “You’re both friends, but what colour is the sky on your planet?”

Several MPs left the meeting unconvinced, with one saying “we definitely can’t have an election after that”.

“It was delusional. A burbling, embarrassing litany of trite slogans,” one MP told HuffPost UK. “They haven’t a clue. I just thought what are you smoking?”

At one point during the 90-minute meeting, Lavery was asked by backbencher Peter Kyle why Labour was now regularly behind the Tories in the polls - often by double figures in percentage points.

Veteran MPs in safe seats and newer MPs in marginals said afterwards they were worried by the absence of a detailed, credible plan to fight the election.
Corbyn is under growing pressure from his MPs to postpone a general election until the spring, with even backbenchers with large majorities worried about the twin threat of the Brexit party and the Liberal Democrats.

Several members of the shadow cabinet now back the idea of holding off an election to either give time to push a second referendum or to simply exploit Tory divisions over a delay to Brexit and hope the opinion polls turn in Labour’s favour.

Some Labour MPs and even shadow ministers have been highly critical of the raft of community organisers hired by the party and seen by critics as the pet project of Karie Murphy, the controversial aide who left Corbyn’s office last week to head up election preparation at the party’s HQ.

Mary Glindon, who represents North Tyneside, complained that community organisers - which critics claim have cost £1.5m - were not needed in her safe seat and would be better off spending their time in marginals.

She said that the community organisers locally had organised two Momentum meetings and that appeared to be the total of their efforts, with little or no contact with local parties, regional offices or councillors.

Several MPs and peers are worried that the party has lost highly experienced elections and polling staff who have fought recent contests, including the 2017 election as well as winning elections in 1997, 2001 and 2005.

Many of those present stressed that there was no anger directed at Lavery and Gwynne, just disbelief.

“It’s obvious we are nowhere near ready for an election. Ian started talking about community organisers and said the words ‘organic social media’. Even he didn’t seem to believe it,” one said. “He was the only person who didn’t realise the big hole open up in the room around him.

“You can tell he’s never had to fight a marginal seat. He’s never had to sort a social media budget, he’s never had to do a get-out-the-vote campaign, in his own seat. And Aaron Bastoni retweets are not an election winning strategy, no matter how ‘organic’ it is.”

Labour MP Neil Coyle, who is defending the marginal seat of Bermondsey and Old Southwark, said that Corbyn’s face should not be on any Labour leaflets because he would be on every single Tory leaflet anyway.

Another MP told HuffPost UK: “We are all assuming John Mac (McDonnell) has now told Jeremy ‘this is a shit show, there’s no way we have an election campaign in place’. And yet they are ploughing on with these crazy selections. It shows it’s all about getting their people in, nothing to do with an election.”

MPs on the party’s Parliamentary Committee have in recent months been told by the party HQ that there is internal polling showing the gap is narrower than public polls portray, but their requests to be shown the polling have been refused.

Kate Osamor complained that some people signed up as Labour members in her constituency appeared not to be on the electoral register, one source said. PLP chair Jon Cryer is said to have agreed to raise the issue with the party.

One Corbyn ally said that there were questions from MPs trying to get to grips with new software and “a few Brexit/Corbyn comments from people who usually raise it”. “It’s just people trying to cause trouble. Both Ian and Andrew covered lots of areas and took loads of questions.”

Another supporter of the leadership said there was no hostility at the meeting but there was obvious concern.

“Members are nervous and expressed a range of views, many of which opposed each other. Remain and Leave MPs using the same arguments but from their viewpoint. Unique circumstances and understandable anxieties.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/plp-labour-mps-election-not-ready_uk_5da4ef87e4b01c76560b6d6a?f9c

Offline Andy @ Allerton

  • Official RAWK ambassador to Manchester. Has got a shite bunch of coconuts. A Famous Grouse. Aaaand we're back in the room...Loves Mission Impossible theme tune. Wishes he had eight cocks cos he's a pervy arachnophiliac who fears ants with guns!
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 58,347
  • Duckie McDuckFace
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #958 on: October 15, 2019, 06:10:26 AM »
Can someone explain why Corbyn, after witnessing this pile of bullshit produced by Johnson, didn't take the fat blonde gobshite to task over it?

Why did he treat it as a serious queens speech? It was clearly an election manifesto that Johnson has conned the Queen into reading.

I feel a more adept and clued-up opposition leader would have made mincemeat of the minority 'Government' 'in charge' of the country..?
Brexit. As stupid as you can imagine.

The poor voting to make themselves worse off and their masters richer.

Offline No666

  • Married to Macca.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 14,066
Re: General political discussion Part II
« Reply #959 on: October 15, 2019, 07:32:21 AM »
Nah. CBI needs to make its mind up. Are Labour paying shareholders a fair price, or are they going to confiscate everything and beggar people? Can't be both. Also 'OMG government are buying things which are worth something' isn't really a horror story. Not that Labour are immune to wanting things both ways - you can make the argument that profits will mean assets eventually pay for themselves or you can promise lots of things in addition to that which will need government to subsidise the nationalised whatever.
I read that in The Guardian and thought, well, what's the point of nationalisation if you're not going to make my heating bills lower? Just take the billions and throw directly at the NHS.