EPTI'm aware of how legislation is passed, arguably it works the same way in most countries; but stating that the constitution is constantly evolving is just blatantly obvious. The topic is drastic democratic reform (for example the difference between the 1st through to 5th French Republic) not minor amendments. zzzz
UK Politics Mega-thread - Page 410
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
|
MyTHicaL
France1070 Posts
I'm aware of how legislation is passed, arguably it works the same way in most countries; but stating that the constitution is constantly evolving is just blatantly obvious. The topic is drastic democratic reform (for example the difference between the 1st through to 5th French Republic) not minor amendments. zzzz | ||
KwarK
United States42885 Posts
What you need to understand is that there has been no legislation passed to change this. Instead what has happened is that the personal decisions of Blair and Cameron to cede the decision to Parliament, and the political quagmire of Brexit, have led to a change in Parliamentary practice that has, in effect, stripped the government of much of their constitutional powers over foreign policy. That's pretty drastic. This is what you're not aware of. It's not about legislation. That's why it's not the same as the way it works in most other countries. In the British constitution reform is based upon practice, not upon legislation. When the practice changes the constitution changes, and the practice changes constantly. And until you grasp this you cannot possibly comment on constitutional reform in the United Kingdom. | ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
On February 11 2018 03:26 MyTHicaL wrote: I think you need to read this; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism In all urgency please. There are a lot of things that I woulds say in reply to your blatantly ignorant statement. But instead I'll just say you made me physically face palm. Privatising railways may seem like a good idea, but not if you sell entire rail lines to one company. If multiple private companies were running on the same line that they paid the government to for the upkeep of you could make the argument that the competition would decrease rail prices/increase services (like the airtravel industry). However the UK literally did the dumbest thing possible which is why it has one of the most expensive and lowest service quality rail services (if not the) in all of at least Western/Northern Europe (I haven't been to Eastern Europe, I think it depends on which country- I'm under the impression that some of them offer amazing rail services...). Even worse than selling off the railways was the selling of the Royal Mail to seemingly preselected buyers at 1/3 of the real share market price... Your comment starts as so ignorant and abusive that I didn't bother to read it all. I guess we're even. I hope you had a nice time stretching your fingers. In the meantime, if a moderator warns you for your unacceptable language, that will be great. | ||
|
MyTHicaL
France1070 Posts
On February 11 2018 04:57 KwarK wrote: It's not a question of how legislation is passed. That's what I'm trying to explain to you but you seem to be too caught up in this idea that we're having some kind of adversarial contest to listen. Historically speaking all foreign policy concerns, from making and unmaking treaties to declaring war, were the prerogative of the monarch and were wielded by the Prime Minister on her behalf. What you need to understand is that there has been no legislation passed to change this. Instead what has happened is that the personal decisions of Blair and Cameron to cede the decision to Parliament, and the political quagmire of Brexit, have led to a change in Parliamentary practice that has, in effect, stripped the government of much of their constitutional powers over foreign policy. That's pretty drastic. This is what you're not aware of. It's not about legislation. That's why it's not the same as the way it works in most other countries. In the British constitution reform is based upon practice, not upon legislation. When the practice changes the constitution changes, and the practice changes constantly. And until you grasp this you cannot possibly comment on constitutional reform in the United Kingdom. Fine, I won't it's not very interesting anyways. But logically no reform is needed since it is perpetually happening. Problem solved. User was banned for this post. | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On February 10 2018 21:20 sc-darkness wrote: When they say services should be owned by community then that's pretty much communism. Read words again. They have a common root. Also, Corbyn wanted to nationalise railway and banks. If that's not communism, I don't know what is. Edit: At best, lines are blurry between communism and socialism. It's a wrong decision regardless how you call it. Banks shouldn't be touched at all. My personal opinion is railway and banks are perfectly fine when they're privatised. Are you really going to ask taxpayer to support them as well? It's already difficult with NHS (I don't think healthcare should be privatised). If you add more to responsibilities, then things might collapse. With business, it's a bit easier - burden is on them. If they fail, someone else will buy and develop them. Absolutely awful, almost entirely incorrect take. The entymological argument is absolutely absurd, local council control over housing or state control over railways is not communism because it shares a root - it would really just represent a reversion to the policy of the 1950s. The current way rail privatisation works is that they CAN'T fail - it would be disastrous if that happened, they are a public good. They are state subsidised, and often turn a large profit regardless of their performance because the government promises the recipients of the franchises that that will happen, and grants subsidies to that effect. It would be nice if you made an effort to understand the subject before sharing your 'personal opinion'. | ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
Now, as I said, I can see an argument for and against privatising railway. I guess solution depends on country, but I've used railway in the UK and I can say it's better than the national one I got in my country. Yes, Northern railway is a bit crap, privatisation didn't seem to be extremely beneficial there. However, I liked Virgin trains while I was in the UK. Only problem is, as some people said, cost of tickets. From town I was living in to London was about 70 pounds for a round ticket. By comparison, similar distance costs about 17 pounds by bus in my country. I don't even compare to railway here because it's crap and I won't use it till it's overhauled. Pricing is the only thing that I can agree with you at the moment. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9672 Posts
On February 13 2018 00:54 sc-darkness wrote: My personal opinion (yes, PERSONAL OPINION without quotes) is perfectly fine. That's what democracy is. If you don't like that people can express one, go to North Korea. Please. Now, as I said, I can see an argument for and against privatising railway. I guess solution depends on country, but I've used railway in the UK and I can say it's better than the national one I got in my country. Yes, Northern railway is a bit crap, privatisation didn't seem to be extremely beneficial there. However, I liked Virgin trains while I was in the UK. Only problem is, as some people said, cost of tickets. From town I was living in to London was about 70 pounds for a round ticket. By comparison, similar distance costs about 17 pounds by bus in my country. I don't even compare to railway here because it's crap and I won't use it till it's overhauled. Pricing is the only thing that I can agree with you at the moment. Your problem is that you are looking at it wrong. Just because you like Virgin Trains it says nothing about the UK rail system as a whole, which has been an unmitigated disaster since it was privatized. Far from it being run by good wholesome entrepreneurs, many of the companies running our railways are foreign state owned companies (commie bastards am i right?) such as the Dutch state owned railway company who runs the Liverpool line and the various lines run by Chinese state rail companies. So the prices have gone right up, the service quality is absolutely abysmal, and the extra profits from the price rises go straight into the pockets of foreign governments just because our government can't spare the effort to do the job themselves. Of course you are welcome to your opinion, but in this case your opinion is based on a personal experience of the system which is far removed from the facts of the day to day running of that system. | ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
On February 13 2018 01:03 Jockmcplop wrote: Your problem is that you are looking at it wrong. Just because you like Virgin Trains it says nothing about the UK rail system as a whole, which has been an unmitigated disaster since it was privatized. Far from it being run by good wholesome entrepreneurs, many of the companies running our railways are foreign state owned companies (commie bastards am i right?) such as the Dutch state owned railway company who runs the Liverpool line and the various lines run by Chinese state rail companies. So the prices have gone right up, the service quality is absolutely abysmal, and the extra profits from the price rises go straight into the pockets of foreign governments just because our government can't spare the effort to do the job themselves. Of course you are welcome to your opinion, but in this case your opinion is based on a personal experience of the system which is far removed from the facts of the day to day running of that system. If what you tell me is true, that doesn't make privatisation a failure in general. It means whoever negotiated privatisation deals didn't do their job properly. Someone else said you can't generalise something just based on one case - I think it applies here as well. On the other hand, privatisation of UK's telecoms is bad for some reason. Here, in my country, I'm going to pay 15 euro/month for 200+ channels (45+ HD) and up to 100 mbits internet speed. It's on a discount, it usually costs 35 euros. In the UK, I was paying 44-51 pounds for landline and 76 mbits. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9672 Posts
On February 13 2018 01:18 sc-darkness wrote: If what you tell me is true, that doesn't make privatisation a failure in general. It means whoever negotiated privatisation deals didn't do their job properly. Someone else said you can't generalise something just based on one case - I think it applies here as well. On the other hand, privatisation of UK's telecoms is bad for some reason. Here, in my country, I'm going to pay 15 euro/month for 200+ channels (45+ HD) and up to 100 mbits internet speed. It's on a discount, it usually costs 35 euros. In the UK, I was paying 44-51 pounds for landline and 76 mbits. Of course you are right, privatization in the UK has been a disaster because it has been negotiated by morons who have no sense of the need to conduct business in the public interest. These are the same people who are negotiating Brexit, which is a huge cause for concern. Privatization as a theory or a model isn't flawed in of itself, but needs to be carried out with care and precision. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18037 Posts
On February 13 2018 01:24 Jockmcplop wrote: Of course you are right, privatization in the UK has been a disaster because it has been negotiated by morons who have no sense of the need to conduct business in the public interest. These are the same people who are negotiating Brexit, which is a huge cause for concern. Privatization as a theory or a model isn't flawed in of itself, but needs to be carried out with care and precision. As a counterexample I will offer the Dutch postal service. This was negotiated very well from a government point of view. The (privatized) Dutch postal service has to: 1. Continue to service any and all homes at least 3 times a week. 2. Continue to deliver urgent national mail within 24 hours regardless of destination. 3. Continue to collect mail everywhere at least once a day. The problem is, that most of this is not profitable. The Dutch postal service made money off directed advertisements, package service and a couple of other lucrative contracts (banks, mail order companies, etc.). The money from this was used to finance a daily mail service for tiny towns in the middle of the countryside. So the Dutch postal service was forced to keep these conditions in the public interest (and face stiff fines if they don't), while their postal monopoly was busted (because what's the point of a free market if there isn't actually a market). So Deutsche post and a couple of other companies swooped in and bought up those lucrative contracts, the Dutch mail service split into two companies: the post and the packaging service. The postal company ran at a heavy loss and needed cash injections from the government. The package service runs a tidy profit (but because they are separate companies, that cash is obviously not injected into the postal service). By now the Dutch postal service is no longer as disastrously underfunded. You know why not? Because they have branched out and undercut the German and French postal services in their countries, where they now have the exact same problem: the Dutch postal service takes the lucrative German contracts such as directed advertising and bank mail, while being stuck (by law) with all the unprofitable crap mail in the Netherlands. The German postal service is stuck with their unprofitable crap mail in Germany, but undercuts the Dutch mail service in the Netherlands on the lucrative contracts. Free market privatization: what a big win. At least it is now cheaper. Because they also busted the postal workers' union, fired almost all the employees and then recontracted them as private "couriers" at half the wage and far worse conditions. Capitalism! Fuck yeah! | ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18037 Posts
On February 13 2018 04:20 sc-darkness wrote: Well, your argument is pointless because you're trying to express it generally. Personally, I don't want government to run everything. There's no competition and we know that competition brings innovation, cheaper products and quality. E.g. Intel, AMD, Microsoft, Apple, etc. As mentioned many times, there are areas like healthcare where it doesn't work though. Weren't you the one who equated government-run services to communism just a page ago? | ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
On February 13 2018 04:48 Acrofales wrote: Weren't you the one who equated government-run services to communism just a page ago? As usual, people like to believe what they want to believe even if someone didn't say something. In this case, I refer you to my previous posts. Nothing has changed - I support privatisation in some cases, while I'm against it in other cases. That's all you missed. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On February 10 2018 21:07 sc-darkness wrote: I'm not British, but I didn't think Labour was communist (except for Corbyn but not too much). However, this speech says services should be given to the people and it's just communist... It's not going to happen too: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861 Eastern Europe collapsed almost 30 years ago because of communism. Some people never learn. AND On February 10 2018 21:20 sc-darkness wrote: It could simply be a language barrier, but I don't think you should comment on anything with regards to nationalisation and communism as you clearly lack understanding.When they say services should be owned by community then that's pretty much communism. Read words again. They have a common root. Also, Corbyn wanted to nationalise railway and banks. If that's not communism, I don't know what is. | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On February 13 2018 04:20 sc-darkness wrote: Well, your argument is pointless because you're trying to express it generally. Personally, I don't want government to run everything. There's no competition and we know that competition brings innovation, cheaper products and quality. E.g. Intel, AMD, Microsoft, Apple, etc. As mentioned many times, there are areas like healthcare where it doesn't work though. Rail is also one though - you don't choose between a number of different companies based on rational thinking, you get the train that arrives at 8:35 because you NEED to be at work by 9:30. Competition doesn't function in the same way. | ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
On February 13 2018 09:48 Dangermousecatdog wrote: You literally wrote AND It could simply be a language barrier, but I don't think you should comment on anything with regards to nationalisation and communism as you clearly lack understanding. You're the last person I'll take advice from based on your previous posts. I think a lot of people criticise you already. Having said that, to each their own. My opinion about nationalisation is unchanged. If the UK failed to privatise a thing or two correctly, it doesn't mean privatisation is bad. Also, before you attempt to pretend I said something I didn't, please think twice if I actually said it. It seems it's common here. Also, the number of socialists in this thread is shocking. I don't know about the UK, but this thread definitely doesn't represent the correct ratio of left and ring wing people in the real world. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
German: Kommunismus and Gemeinschaft/Gesellschaft. So clearly in Germany those things must as different as night and day. French: communisme and societé Portuguese: comunismo and sociedade you see where I'm heading, right? And why I'm heading there? While I think that defending privatisations puts you not in the worst of company, I can only see loss of potential revenue and security for the provided service as well as potential to subsidize deficient/unprofitable but crucial services, rural public transport for example by maintaining profitable services like the water supply or, ironically as I'm from Berlin, airports and ports in the public ownership. I'll stop here because no matter how many facts one throws at you, if you made up your mind, you're gonna keep that opinion, not a care in the world whether it's a fact or not. You could easily prove me wrong if you want to dig up some solid data whether privatisation can generally be regarded as a fruitful endeavor for society (as you appear to do so, correct me if that's a wrong assertion). | ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
I never argued about essential services like water and healthcare though. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On February 15 2018 04:30 sc-darkness wrote: Don't play backseat moderator. If you have a problem with me, take it with moderators or stay quiet. If you prefer insinuate that others have problems with me, you'll be joining in the debating style of of danglars and legalord. You are perfectly free to choose whether you with to associate with their style.You're the last person I'll take advice from based on your previous posts. I think a lot of people criticise you already. Having said that, to each their own. My opinion about nationalisation is unchanged. If the UK failed to privatise a thing or two correctly, it doesn't mean privatisation is bad. Also, before you attempt to pretend I said something I didn't, please think twice if I actually said it. It seems it's common here. Also, the number of socialists in this thread is shocking. I don't know about the UK, but this thread definitely doesn't represent the correct ratio of left and ring wing people in the real world. Also, are you insane? Those are your actual quotes, recent and lead directly to why everyone is discussing with you. I'm not pretending you wrote that, you literally wrote it. I don't need to think if you wrote it, and nor does anybody else, we can just click the quote button. This is a forum, we can perfectly see what you have written a couple of days ago, to deny that you have not actually said it is just beyond belief. They are fully quoted with a time and date. | ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
| ||
| ||
