In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note.
Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon.
All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting.
On May 24 2017 08:33 KwarK wrote: I'm voting Lib Dem in an incredibly safe Conservative seat. My only real incentive to vote is so that somewhere in the Conservative party offices someone will say "who are these extra Lib Dem voters and how can we better appeal to them?" the way UKIP votes did.
This is pretty much how i feel, i was almost certain on Conservatives around 3-4 weeks ago, amazing what has changed since then. Tories had this in the bag and they still most likely do but they really dropped the ball on the latest policies.
On May 23 2017 07:33 Jockmcplop wrote: So in her BBC interview Theresa May accuses Corbyn of trying to 'sneak' into downing street. Corbyn, who is running for PM, accused by unelected PM May of sneaking. Hmmm.....
This was the sort of car crash interview I'm used to seeing from Labour.
She sounds terrified. You can really sense her fear.Its weird, its like she is realizing that they were a little bit arrogant. Anything can happen in politics these days. This government needs to really come up with some answers, the questions are fair, their manifesto is just awful, and if you ask me the best thing they can do is just say fuck it and add a bunch of decent policies to it.
Terrified? Fair questions? She stayed calm and held to her line in a hostile interview. We shall see how 'unelected PM May' is when the vote actually happens.
I don't think the interview was hostile. I thought the first few questions were unhelpful and confrontational but after that I thought it was quite soft for a serious political interview. He gave her time to answer, dropped questions quickly despite non-answers, and rarely interrupted her except when it was clear she was starting a rehearsed and already used soundbite that wasn't even relevant to the question.
Moreover, I thought Theresa May was far more hostile. I found her constant use of "Andrew" to be condescending (I guess it was meant to seem friendly) but it sounded more like an adult talking to a child. She refused to answer any question, or give any details. An interview needs both a willing interviewer and a willing interviewee to be a good interview.
For example; She refused to say anything about the social care cap but implied it was there all along - she said nothing about what the cap would be. She also said nothing about the means-testing of the Winter Fuel Allowance so people could guess who would be affected by it. She implied no tax rises but refused to say for certain and said nothing about the previous attempt to raise national insurance on self-employed. She did not explain the source of the extra £8bn for the NHS.
I watched the interview and I learnt nothing of substance from Theresa May about what she/the conservatives would do with a majority.
What's gone wrong? So why do you think your lead is narrowing? But could you be in a little bit of trouble now because you were so sure of winning that you thought you could get away with a lot of uncosted and half baked policies? But your policies are uncosted and half baked, aren't they? I call it hostile, you say confrontational...I won't split hairs with you. And really all I can gather from you implying condescension and imputing hostility on May's part is that you like the interviewer and dislike Theresa May.
You're right on what she refused to say and did not explain. Reading between the lines, you're wanting to say he was justified in calling her dishonest and her ideas half-baked. I don't think you and I disagree all that much. It wasn't that productive in specific answers because she refused to go into specifics. He was right to push, and especially in the middle he went about that as any interviewer did. At the beginning, however, it sounded very much like accusatory debate tactics from assertions of half-baked ideas to allegations of bad intent for calling the election. Unforced errors on him from the start, when if he had shown he was only pushing for answers, he would absolutely been seen more positively throughout the course of the interview. So it's entirely consistent to praise his performance in the middle and criticize the tone he set from the start that partially overshadowed it.
It seems like we mostly agree (most of the examples you gave of hostile questions came from the start which I admitted were unhelpful and confrontational, I thought it was clear I disapproved of them) but my overall point was that they both made the interview that way. Andrew Neil set the tone and Theresa May did not encourage the better questions by giving better answers to them. I would go one stage further and say that Theresa May did nothing at all to make a good interview but Andrew Neil did at least ask some good questions. Not great by either of them, but one of them did okay at times which means I think that has one more of my respect. As little as that is and as depressing as that is to say.
That is what I meant by saying Theresa May was more hostile. I meant that she was a bigger factor in the interview being as bad as it was. It is a more passive hostility, but it was a very adversarial approach taken by her.
(Side note: If someone repeatedly uses my first name then I will think they are either (a) trying to manipulate me, or (b) trying to demean me. It is not a natural way of talking to friends, or to colleagues. Would you not get irritated if somebody you were not close to used your first name that frequently?)
I do dislike Theresa May, but that is because of her attitude towards such interviews and how vague she always is. She has been PM since October, and now has been campaigning for weeks which includes a manifesto and I still have little idea what she actually wants to do, besides increase surveillance. A lot of what she talks about does not seem to be backed up what she tried to do as PM or what is in the manifesto; Examples - She has talked about creating a more equal education system, where money cannot buy you access to a good school (via house prices) but she wants to create more grammar schools which help the affluent. - She says there is no plan/intention to raise national insurance but a raise for self-employed was included in the previous budget (but later removed). - In that interview, Andrew Neil highlighted her conflicting statements about no deal on Brexit, both that no deal would have dire consequences but would still be better than a bad deal.
I mostly agree with you. On the first name bit, I rather think it humanizes the entire exchange. Especially when the confrontation is front and center. Although one time it was pretty pointed, I have to admit. I'd say the other half is helping give non-answers more of a feel of "let me level with you, it's really x..." I'm very jaded at hearing American politicians do the same thing. The public doesn't want to hear that increased spending must eventually be paid for.
On May 24 2017 08:33 KwarK wrote: I'm voting Lib Dem in an incredibly safe Conservative seat. My only real incentive to vote is so that somewhere in the Conservative party offices someone will say "who are these extra Lib Dem voters and how can we better appeal to them?" the way UKIP votes did.
This is pretty much how i feel, i was almost certain on Conservatives around 3-4 weeks ago, amazing what has changed since then. Tories had this in the bag and they still most likely do but they really dropped the ball on the latest policies.
Well even if they're in trouble nationally that doesn't mean much for the constituencies of most people. Most seats simply aren't competitive. Constituency FPTP isn't a good system.
This is what Labour will do to keep us safe. Start renewing the numbers of our depleted police force. Stop selling weapons to the people who want us dead. This all seems like common sense, but the Tories are putting themselves down as the more security conscious option just because they have a more angry ideology. I don't really understand how they can claim to contribute to our security while absolutely decimating our police service.
Would authorize Trident if attacked? So if the Argentinians try it again then we'd erase Buenos Aires?
Honestly I'd like it a lot more if they explained the specific needs in each case. If an independent commission had concluded that the prison service was understaffed and that to bring it back to operational levels would take 3,000 new hires then say "we're hiring 3,000 new prison officers to bring the prison service in line with the recommendations of the X report". These numbers don't really mean very much in isolation unfortunately. It's all very vague.
I'm not saying it's wrong, my problem is that it certainly doesn't make the case that it's right.
My quick thoughts: I wasn't aware that there was a problem with our fire brigade. The prisons which seem to require more staff appear to be the privately run ones, where profit is more important than security. UK already spends 2% on Defence, though I suppose it is met because they count pension payments as part of that 2%. More police officers is good, though I wonder how they propose to pay for all this without taking on more debt. Ban of arms sales to Saudi Arabia is odd in that it is practically a political non-issue for now. Not sure what £10bn on cyber security translates to, but do UK even have that many security experts to pay with? The renewal of trident and would authorise Trident if attacked appears contrary to Corbyn's views, but appears to exist to assur voters, and in any case, I believe UK cannot authorise Trident without USA permission strangely enough.
On May 26 2017 02:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote: My quick thoughts: I wasn't aware that there was a problem with our fire brigade.
Me neither
The prisons which seem to require more staff appear to be the privately run ones, where profit is more important than security.
Do you have any evidence for this? As far as I was aware, the biggest problem with the prison system is the variation in staffing levels and quality of infrastructure. Old, inefficient prisons have been hit with exactly the same cuts as the newer more efficient prisons that would be able to cope with such cuts. Its plain old incompetence combined with cuts, which is how the tories have wrecked every public service they have touched.
UK already spends 2% on Defence, though I suppose it is met because they count pension payments as part of that 2%. More police officers is good, though I wonder how they propose to pay for all this without taking on more debt.
Unlike the tory manifesto, Labour's is actually fully costed. You can look at the numbers yourself.
Ban of arms sales to Saudi Arabia is odd in that it is practically a political non-issue for now.
I disagree. The Saudis are a brutal regime who export the very terrorists who are threatening us, and we are arming them in their quest to destroy us. Its ridiculous.
Not sure what £10bn on cyber security translates to, but do UK even have that many security experts to pay with?
They could hire better experts from abroad I guess.
The renewal of trident and would authorise Trident if attacked appears contrary to Corbyn's views, but appears to exist to assur voters, and in any case, I believe UK cannot authorise Trident without USA permission strangely enough.
It is contrary to Corbyn's views, but I think his party overruled him on this. I don't know about the legal stuff about permission.
They are quick thoughts, they may not be entirely accurate, and are probably entirely wrong. Mostly sourced from various media over the years. I sound like the common problem in politics, don't I? I can't say much about the other issues, but would think that only British born and vetted security experts will be allowed to be be part of cyber security operations.
"Fully costed". Do you become blind when looking at your own side? Their "costing" relies on a made up guess as to what income tax will raise (kind of how the SNP took the most ridiculous projections for oil prices to justify independence) and neglects to mention their nationalisation schemes which will be insanely expensive.
If you believe we can afford all the things they are promising without extensive borrowing you'll believe anything. That's not to say the Tories are doing well - they're not. The Tories think they can get away without promising anything and Labour think they can get away with promising absolutely everything.
I didn't say the costings were correct did I? Does your reading comprehension suffer when reading about the other side? I said it is costed, which is more than the tories bothered to do.
On May 26 2017 03:20 bardtown wrote: "Fully costed". Do you become blind when looking at your own side? Their "costing" relies on a made up guess as to what income tax will raise (kind of how the SNP took the most ridiculous projections for oil prices to justify independence) and neglects to mention their nationalisation schemes which will be insanely expensive.
If you believe we can afford all the things they are promising without extensive borrowing you'll believe anything. That's not to say the Tories are doing well - they're not. The Tories think they can get away without promising anything and Labour think they can get away with promising absolutely everything.
From what I've read nationalisation is an investment that won't increase the deficit or debt, as the interest on the money we borrow can be paid off from the profits of the franchises. Not certain about that though.
On May 26 2017 03:20 bardtown wrote: "Fully costed". Do you become blind when looking at your own side? Their "costing" relies on a made up guess as to what income tax will raise (kind of how the SNP took the most ridiculous projections for oil prices to justify independence) and neglects to mention their nationalisation schemes which will be insanely expensive.
If you believe we can afford all the things they are promising without extensive borrowing you'll believe anything. That's not to say the Tories are doing well - they're not. The Tories think they can get away without promising anything and Labour think they can get away with promising absolutely everything.
From what I've read nationalisation is an investment that won't increase the deficit or debt, as the interest on the money we borrow can be paid off from the profits of the franchises. Not certain about that though.
If the nationalized companies have to make a profit, why the hell bother nationalizing them in the first place?
On May 26 2017 03:20 bardtown wrote: "Fully costed". Do you become blind when looking at your own side? Their "costing" relies on a made up guess as to what income tax will raise (kind of how the SNP took the most ridiculous projections for oil prices to justify independence) and neglects to mention their nationalisation schemes which will be insanely expensive.
If you believe we can afford all the things they are promising without extensive borrowing you'll believe anything. That's not to say the Tories are doing well - they're not. The Tories think they can get away without promising anything and Labour think they can get away with promising absolutely everything.
From what I've read nationalisation is an investment that won't increase the deficit or debt, as the interest on the money we borrow can be paid off from the profits of the franchises. Not certain about that though.
If the nationalized companies have to make a profit, why the hell bother nationalizing them in the first place?
Well the idea is we already subsidise them quite substantially to exist in the first place, and they're in such a mess that the companies here have proved themselves incapable of operating the railways.
Ah, well no doubt Labour will fix that. Is there a single competent individual left in their cabinet? I hope Labour voters can live with their consciences if they win and we have Keir 'no deal is worse than a bad deal' Starmer in charge of Brexit, Dianne 'white people love to play divide and conquer' Abbott in charge of our security and Emily 'image from Rochester' Thornberry in charge of our international relations.
On May 26 2017 03:20 bardtown wrote: "Fully costed". Do you become blind when looking at your own side? Their "costing" relies on a made up guess as to what income tax will raise (kind of how the SNP took the most ridiculous projections for oil prices to justify independence) and neglects to mention their nationalisation schemes which will be insanely expensive.
If you believe we can afford all the things they are promising without extensive borrowing you'll believe anything. That's not to say the Tories are doing well - they're not. The Tories think they can get away without promising anything and Labour think they can get away with promising absolutely everything.
From what I've read nationalisation is an investment that won't increase the deficit or debt, as the interest on the money we borrow can be paid off from the profits of the franchises. Not certain about that though.
You'd still increase debt. You have to compensate current shareholders. You can't just confiscate it. Well you can but that'd be insane.
On May 26 2017 03:20 bardtown wrote: "Fully costed". Do you become blind when looking at your own side? Their "costing" relies on a made up guess as to what income tax will raise (kind of how the SNP took the most ridiculous projections for oil prices to justify independence) and neglects to mention their nationalisation schemes which will be insanely expensive.
If you believe we can afford all the things they are promising without extensive borrowing you'll believe anything. That's not to say the Tories are doing well - they're not. The Tories think they can get away without promising anything and Labour think they can get away with promising absolutely everything.
From what I've read nationalisation is an investment that won't increase the deficit or debt, as the interest on the money we borrow can be paid off from the profits of the franchises. Not certain about that though.
You'd still increase debt. You have to compensate current shareholders. You can't just confiscate it. Well you can but that'd be insane.
They're purchasing them when the franchises expire and have to be renewed. And I would trust Keir 'top British lawyer' Starmer immensely more with almost anything than BJ Johnson and David Davies lol. Let's be honest, the Tory cabinet is hardly more competent than Labour'a right now. They are all blatantly lying to the British public above all else, I don't know how you could trust them with anything.
The Corbyn interview. Neil focused on his personality quite heavily, which was smart if you are trying to make him look bad. Labour's policies are better the tories so attacking him personally was more likely to achieve that TV goal of something sensational being said. Corbyn kept his cool fairly well, although he sounded a bit irritated at times. I think he did a bit better than May, but some of the questions he left unanswered about his past are pretty serious.
On May 26 2017 03:20 bardtown wrote: "Fully costed". Do you become blind when looking at your own side? Their "costing" relies on a made up guess as to what income tax will raise (kind of how the SNP took the most ridiculous projections for oil prices to justify independence) and neglects to mention their nationalisation schemes which will be insanely expensive.
If you believe we can afford all the things they are promising without extensive borrowing you'll believe anything. That's not to say the Tories are doing well - they're not. The Tories think they can get away without promising anything and Labour think they can get away with promising absolutely everything.
From what I've read nationalisation is an investment that won't increase the deficit or debt, as the interest on the money we borrow can be paid off from the profits of the franchises. Not certain about that though.
You'd still increase debt. You have to compensate current shareholders. You can't just confiscate it. Well you can but that'd be insane.
They're purchasing them when the franchises expire and have to be renewed. And I would trust Keir 'top British lawyer' Starmer immensely more with almost anything than BJ Johnson and David Davies lol. Let's be honest, the Tory cabinet is hardly more competent than Labour'a right now. They are all blatantly lying to the British public above all else, I don't know how you could trust them with anything.
What you're saying makes no sense to me. When you're nationalizing railways, water companies etc. you have to either take over existing companies or buy all required assets. When the franchise expires you still need the trains, the rails etc. to use it.
On May 26 2017 03:20 bardtown wrote: "Fully costed". Do you become blind when looking at your own side? Their "costing" relies on a made up guess as to what income tax will raise (kind of how the SNP took the most ridiculous projections for oil prices to justify independence) and neglects to mention their nationalisation schemes which will be insanely expensive.
If you believe we can afford all the things they are promising without extensive borrowing you'll believe anything. That's not to say the Tories are doing well - they're not. The Tories think they can get away without promising anything and Labour think they can get away with promising absolutely everything.
From what I've read nationalisation is an investment that won't increase the deficit or debt, as the interest on the money we borrow can be paid off from the profits of the franchises. Not certain about that though.
You'd still increase debt. You have to compensate current shareholders. You can't just confiscate it. Well you can but that'd be insane.
They're purchasing them when the franchises expire and have to be renewed. And I would trust Keir 'top British lawyer' Starmer immensely more with almost anything than BJ Johnson and David Davies lol. Let's be honest, the Tory cabinet is hardly more competent than Labour'a right now. They are all blatantly lying to the British public above all else, I don't know how you could trust them with anything.
What you're saying makes no sense to me. When you're nationalizing railways, water companies etc. you have to either take over existing companies or buy all required assets. When the franchise expires you still need the trains, the rails etc. to use it.
The rail network in the UK is weird. The rails are all publicly owned (by Network Rail). Private train operating companies (TOCs) are given licences to run the trains, which last 20 years normally. Those TOCs lease trains from other private rolling stock operating companies (ROSCOs). I don't know about the stations, but I believe they are mostly owned by Network Rail and managed by private companies.
Afaik the Labour plan is to stop issuing licences and have the job of the TOCs done by a publicly owned company. Theoretically I think it would not cost anything. It would take longer than one term though.
The other services that Labour want to nationalise would cost a lot of money. I know they want to take over the water companies and Royal Mail. That would be expensive. However, those companies are profitable and the government can borrow at very low rates so if you wanted to do it then now is a good time. If the current dividends paid out by those companies is higher than the government's borrowing rate then government would actually make money on it.
Edit: Summary; nationalising trains would not add to debt or deficit. Nationalising other things adds to debt. Only adds to deficit in one year (when the purchases are made). Future deficits depend on difference between current share dividends of the companies and government bond rate, which atm would give a profit for the government.
EPT
![[image loading]](https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18664596_1538276489540189_1532535401227994161_n.jpg?oh=43f5a45a1d599e7d40ffab2ea44bddaf&oe=59B76854)
