Theresa May (Vol.2)
Discussion
edh said:
RichB said:
Your memory is obviously too short to remember the awful mess British Railways was under public ownership, filthy carriages and stations, trains late, food was laughable. While it is currently fashionable to knock the railways, they are significantly better than they were in the '60s & '70s.
Cars are objectively better and safer now than in the 60's and 70's, Healthcare outcomes are better these days. No public / private correlation. 50 years of technological progress though...Many UK rail operators are wholly or partially state owned - just not UK state owned.
No reason why UK state owned railways wouldn't work
Vaud said:
...Where you can have some competition (power) then leave some of it to the market. ...
Where is the real competition with power? Many of the utilities are just billing system/service centre arbitrage.I agree with the principles being stated very much, but the choice of what should/should not be in public hands is tricky in this country due to our size and population density.
Cars? 100% (1000000%) no. There was never any need.
Water? No. Too fundamentally important. Zero option for competition.
Power? Probably warrants splitting out - network/grid and providers? Former, no. Latter, possibly? But the latter would need to be structured really carefully and the grid set up to allow competition. And by definition I wonder how you could do that without leaving people exposed/without?
NHS? Interesting one. Root and branch reform needed here IMO. I'm becoming of the opinion that only A&E should be free at point of service and public provided, and even then only for UK citizens. Beyond that, I would push it to private ownership and charged for personally.
Rail? Not dissimilar to power in many ways. I'm not sure the current model "works" but do believe it's better than the last bout of public ownership. Could it be done better? I suspect so, but it needs to be part of a properly integrated transport strategy first. And with the space we have, I'm not sure how you make it genuinely competitive. Maybe we just cannot, in the way you could in the US for example??
Einion Yrth said:
wst said:
That doesn't mean that state owned businesses are inherently badly run.
Personal experience tells me that they always have been, why should that change?B) You're omitting the vast amount of badly run private companies in your consideration.
There are hurdles, of course. "The People" often get stirred up in anger about highly paid "fat cats", but unlike people who actively invest in private enterprise they are less likely to (have the) understand(ing) that sometimes it's worth paying someone an extra £100k or so to actually save money long-term, etc. That, and the short term nature of our political cycle (I want to say 5 years, but in the current climate 3 is looking like a stretch
) means that there is a huge incentive to "save money" now and leave the mess for someone else to deal with.Bad management is not an issue inherent or unique to public ownership. I do accept that things would need a bit of joined up thinking to get good management practises past the ire of The tabloid-prodded People.
biggbn said:
SpeckledJim said:
Srious business, and yet, I went to the pub last night and it was no different to the last 20 years.
Being at 'the bottom of a moral morass' is a very dramatic way of saying bugger-all has changed out there in the actual world.
Sit tight, it'll blow over.
Great point, and I summarized it different elsewhere by suggesting that today I took a sBeing at 'the bottom of a moral morass' is a very dramatic way of saying bugger-all has changed out there in the actual world.
Sit tight, it'll blow over.
t, tomorrow I will take a st, and am gonna continue taking sts regardless!!! However, I think this situation has put politicians under such harsh scrutiny that my moral morass comment is not without foundation. There have been more politicians caught lying, cheating and just happy to practice a heads below the parapet mediocre ineptitude than ever before, or more likely they are now being noticed with more frequency. This countries confidence in its political class has never been lower nor has our international standing. Tinpot democracy. As every poor sod with a history degree will tell you, there have been plenty of times in British history when public confidence in its political class has been vastly lower than it is currently.
I’m sure you feel very passionately about all this, but alas it’s kinda snafu for our political “betters”.
frisbee said:
The terminally deranged fruitbat wants to try for fourth time lucky. Some people predicted the channel tunnel would spread rabies to the UK, it looks like they were correct...
She should just crap her pants in the middle of the HOC, it'll be less embarrassing.
It’s not hard to see why, she gets more votes every time she does it. A couple more and it will go through She should just crap her pants in the middle of the HOC, it'll be less embarrassing.
El stovey said:
January lost by 230
March lost by 149
End of March lost by 58
Looks like she wears down almost 80-90 MPs each vote?
When she gets a fourth vote, then she might get her deal through?
Except the 80 from January would have forgotten their switch by the 4th vote and go back to ‘No’ March lost by 149
End of March lost by 58
Looks like she wears down almost 80-90 MPs each vote?
When she gets a fourth vote, then she might get her deal through?
Regardless of your own positions on Brexit, looking at the party's of the MPs voting for and against each motion it's obvious it's simply party politics.
Those voting to back Mays deal at nearly all conservatives.
I find it hard to believe that individual MP votes would look like that if votes were being cast based on their own perspective and not behind doors discussions as to what each party is trying to achieve.
Overall I think the MPs are not representing their constituents.
If they were I'd expect similar overall voting numbers but with both sides of the votes represented by all the party's.
Those voting to back Mays deal at nearly all conservatives.
I find it hard to believe that individual MP votes would look like that if votes were being cast based on their own perspective and not behind doors discussions as to what each party is trying to achieve.
Overall I think the MPs are not representing their constituents.
If they were I'd expect similar overall voting numbers but with both sides of the votes represented by all the party's.
mikebradford said:
Regardless of your own positions on Brexit, looking at the party's of the MPs voting for and against each motion it's obvious it's simply party politics.
Those voting to back Mays deal at nearly all conservatives.
I find it hard to believe that individual MP votes would look like that if votes were being cast based on their own perspective and not behind doors discussions as to what each party is trying to achieve.
Overall I think the MPs are not representing their constituents.
If they were I'd expect similar overall voting numbers but with both sides of the votes represented by all the party's.
Good point, it was always recognised she'd need a decent majority to get anything done. Those voting to back Mays deal at nearly all conservatives.
I find it hard to believe that individual MP votes would look like that if votes were being cast based on their own perspective and not behind doors discussions as to what each party is trying to achieve.
Overall I think the MPs are not representing their constituents.
If they were I'd expect similar overall voting numbers but with both sides of the votes represented by all the party's.
El stovey said:
Burwood said:
Piha said:
Burwood said:
your username isn't the West Auckland beach by chance? If so are you a Kiwi
And a lovely beach it is too. Have you been recently?
Turning immigrant against immigrant
I was here first. mikebradford said:
Overall I think the MPs are not representing their constituents.
If they were I'd expect similar overall voting numbers but with both sides of the votes represented by all the party's.
MPs aren't there to represent their constituents, they are in Westminster to do what's best for the country as a whole. If there was another binary referendum with such vast consequences, I'd expect my MP, with the resources available to them, to do what they thought was right irrespective of what some people who have read something in the Internet think about the situation. If they were I'd expect similar overall voting numbers but with both sides of the votes represented by all the party's.
Burwood said:
Piha said:
Burwood said:
your username isn't the West Auckland beach by chance? If so are you a Kiwi
And a lovely beach it is too. Have you been recently?
pablo said:
MPs aren't there to represent their constituents, they are in Westminster to do what's best for the country as a whole. If there was another binary referendum with such vast consequences, I'd expect my MP, with the resources available to them, to do what they thought was right irrespective of what some people who have read something in the Internet think about the situation.
Yes, but that pass was rather sold when MPs decided to delegate that decision back to the electorate.Many of us are also old fashioned enough to think that any MP should also honour explicit commitments that he/she made to the voters when seeking election...it is not as if this is an issue on which many underlying facts have changed significantly, after all. On a matter like this, if that MP wants to perform a volte face, wouldn't the honourable thing would be to resign and ask for endorsement in a by-election?
Of course, if an MP were to stand on a future election platform in favour of another referendum, that would be reasonable, although presentationally tricky, at least until the decision of the previous one had been honoured. After all, people might not believe that it was offered in good faith.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff