Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Good to see Tory Blair has stuck his oar in again. They just don't know how to cope with his popularity, ignore him and he stays in the lead, rubbish him and he seems to become more popular.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Unlikely to change his popularity amongst rhe swathes of hard left militants and tory mischief makers who signed up spcifically to vote for himGood to see Tory Blair has stuck his oar in again. They just don't know how to cope with his popularity, ignore him and he stays in the lead, rubbish him and he seems to become more popular.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I went to see him speak Stevo, and while there were people selling Socialist worker and leaflets from other leftist organizations the vast majority 98% I would say, seemed to be there just to hear the man speak.
Unlikely to change his popularity amongst rhe swathes of hard left militants and tory mischief makers who signed up spcifically to vote for himGood to see Tory Blair has stuck his oar in again. They just don't know how to cope with his popularity, ignore him and he stays in the lead, rubbish him and he seems to become more popular.
I was pleased to see the audience covered all the age catagories, I'd have been concerned had it been predominantly all one age group. The likes of yourself might, just might should JC win be surprised when 2020 arrives. Obviously by then the press will have endevoured to do a hatchet job on him and the party.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Obviously by then the press will have endevoured to do a hatchet job on him and the party.
They've already started that. The Daily Heil was telling its readers that he wants a Stalinist economy a few days ago. :roll: :roll: :roll:0 -
Frank, I may end up being surpised, life is unpredictable. But it is unlikely. What matters is not whether he can fill a hall with the hard left faithful, it is whether the electorate think that Labour under Corbyn can form a credible and sensible government. Unfortunately the former gives some people the impression that the latter is likely.
I went to see him speak Stevo, and while there were people selling Socialist worker and leaflets from other leftist organizations the vast majority 98% I would say, seemed to be there just to hear the man speak.
Unlikely to change his popularity amongst rhe swathes of hard left militants and tory mischief makers who signed up spcifically to vote for himGood to see Tory Blair has stuck his oar in again. They just don't know how to cope with his popularity, ignore him and he stays in the lead, rubbish him and he seems to become more popular.
I was pleased to see the audience covered all the age catagories, I'd have been concerned had it been predominantly all one age group. The likes of yourself might, just might should JC win be surprised when 2020 arrives. Obviously by then the press will have endevoured to do a hatchet job on him and the party.
In less than 2 weeks time it's the day of reckoning..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I will put it to you that Corbyn is more electable than Miliband, who should have been closer in the last election.
Frank, I may end up being surpised, life is unpredictable. But it is unlikely. What matters is not whether he can fill a hall with the hard left faithful, it is whether the electorate think that Labour under Corbyn can form a credible and sensible government. Unfortunately the former gives some people the impression that the latter is likely.
I went to see him speak Stevo, and while there were people selling Socialist worker and leaflets from other leftist organizations the vast majority 98% I would say, seemed to be there just to hear the man speak.
Unlikely to change his popularity amongst rhe swathes of hard left militants and tory mischief makers who signed up spcifically to vote for himGood to see Tory Blair has stuck his oar in again. They just don't know how to cope with his popularity, ignore him and he stays in the lead, rubbish him and he seems to become more popular.
I was pleased to see the audience covered all the age catagories, I'd have been concerned had it been predominantly all one age group. The likes of yourself might, just might should JC win be surprised when 2020 arrives. Obviously by then the press will have endevoured to do a hatchet job on him and the party.
In less than 2 weeks time it's the day of reckoning...
Things may not pan out how you wish.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
At last somebody who puts forward a rational attempt at how nationalisation could be achieved.HOW- The way(s) I would nationalize them:
1) Id make the government subsidies either convertible superannuated debt, with a simultaneous call date so that they could all be nationalized together, or,
2) I would require these quoted companies to create an extraordinary voting class of shares which would be issued by them and purchased by the government, again in exchange for the subsidies and for any government funded CapEx, not sure if you could just buy a controlling interest 35% or the takeover code would require 100% purchase, but at the point at which you're telling the markets that these companies will no longer get government assistance their share prices will tank anyway.
3) Of course once you have stated you are publicly re nationalizing these companies, they each would create a legal entity to hive off their UK operations (if they haven't already), otherwise E-on, for example, ends up with the UK govt owning a large percentage of its international operations
4) Hardball option is simply to remove subsidies (personally Id ask the EU courts for a ruling, Neelie Kroes or her successor loves nothing more than another chance to criticize a national government for giving money away), and you buy the assets and contracts cheap. This, btw, is what UK PLC SHOULD have done when they re-nationlised the banks, let them fail with the undertaking that the UK govt would buy all their asset & loan books upon bankruptcy making every single employment/bonus /jet leasing contract void
You get some pretty pissed off fund managers and the "we wlll relocate to Singapore" bank lobby starts up again but no-one really believes them as corporate HQs locations are based upon where the Chairmans wife can shop and where their kids can get good schooling.
As to the "monopoly versus free markets point", granted, I was simplifying, the Electricity companies are a collusive oligopoly but I didn't want this to be a microeconomics 102 lecture. The point being, to apply jolly old Michael Porters "five forces" framework, that without transparency on prices (how many consumers understand how much a pair of trousers cost? How many understand how much their electricity costs? ), consumers with high switching costs and little opportunity of substitutes, plus network effects limiting new entrants its a VERY imperfect market, made the more so by the fact that successive UK governments have dis-aggregated the Electicity distribution network in the same way they have in the rail preventing integration and leading to inflexibility of supplier prices.
The ONLY premise for liberalizing these markets in the first place (increased competition leading to higher efficiency and lower costs fro consumer) have been concretely disproved, so why not pocket the dividends and the CEOs salaries and bonuses for the wider UK population.
Not sure that the energy industry receives major subsidy outside of the green sector so unsure how removing this will pull the rug on the energy retailers. Got a link to subsidy info?
As for pulling the subsidies, the likely impact would be a rise in bills but as mentiined above, not sure gow big these are anyway.
Likewise, not sure where the divi info comes from. Only info I could find on a search was a Mirror article stating £7bn per year. Given the price of renationalising, we are looking at a payback period of several decades. Even if you are only talking about the retailers: if you include the distribution and infrastructure companies it will be closer to a century. And you still would not control the primary producers. Simply not anywhere near good financial sense, nor a good use of our money.
And the point about lack of competition still stands.
As for this being away to address the pay levels of a handful of individuals, what a waste of money...
In general the state should only run businesses where it is really essential. This is not essential, never mind affordable."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Why - on the electability and the last election result.
I will put it to you that Corbyn is more electable than Miliband, who should have been closer in the last election.
Frank, I may end up being surpised, life is unpredictable. But it is unlikely. What matters is not whether he can fill a hall with the hard left faithful, it is whether the electorate think that Labour under Corbyn can form a credible and sensible government. Unfortunately the former gives some people the impression that the latter is likely.
I went to see him speak Stevo, and while there were people selling Socialist worker and leaflets from other leftist organizations the vast majority 98% I would say, seemed to be there just to hear the man speak.
Unlikely to change his popularity amongst rhe swathes of hard left militants and tory mischief makers who signed up spcifically to vote for himGood to see Tory Blair has stuck his oar in again. They just don't know how to cope with his popularity, ignore him and he stays in the lead, rubbish him and he seems to become more popular.
I was pleased to see the audience covered all the age catagories, I'd have been concerned had it been predominantly all one age group. The likes of yourself might, just might should JC win be surprised when 2020 arrives. Obviously by then the press will have endevoured to do a hatchet job on him and the party.
In less than 2 weeks time it's the day of reckoning...
Things may not pan out how you wish."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
There is a ground swell of people getting increasingly frustrated with the status quo.Why - on the electability and the last election result.
Maybe not enough as to be blatantly obvious, but maybe enough to swing an election to something different.
Anything different.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
That's one view. Another view is that most people are not doing too badly and either don't care or don't want to change. Especially when the alternative is (in many peoples eyes) a pile of socialist crap that is undelieverable, unworkable and unaffordable.
There is a ground swell of people getting increasingly frustrated with the status quo.Why - on the electability and the last election result.
Maybe not enough as to be blatantly obvious, but maybe enough to swing an election to something different.
Anything different."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo, the point I was making was that the hall was not filled with the hard left ( if you call myself hard left so beit) but with people who are fed up with tory/tory light, they are looking for a socialist option. Who knows what the political landscape will look like in four years time, but I hope it will be one where people are fed up with what this awful tory dogma and the real hope of a socialist reformation can be in their grasp with a simple X on a ballot paper.
Frank, I may end up being surpised, life is unpredictable. But it is unlikely. What matters is not whether he can fill a hall with the hard left faithful, it is whether the electorate think that Labour under Corbyn can form a credible and sensible government. Unfortunately the former gives some people the impression that the latter is likely.
I went to see him speak Stevo, and while there were people selling Socialist worker and leaflets from other leftist organizations the vast majority 98% I would say, seemed to be there just to hear the man speak.
Unlikely to change his popularity amongst rhe swathes of hard left militants and tory mischief makers who signed up spcifically to vote for himGood to see Tory Blair has stuck his oar in again. They just don't know how to cope with his popularity, ignore him and he stays in the lead, rubbish him and he seems to become more popular.
I was pleased to see the audience covered all the age catagories, I'd have been concerned had it been predominantly all one age group. The likes of yourself might, just might should JC win be surprised when 2020 arrives. Obviously by then the press will have endevoured to do a hatchet job on him and the party.
In less than 2 weeks time it's the day of reckoning...Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
That is indeed an alternative view.That's one view. Another view is that most people are not doing too badly and either don't care or don't want to change. Especially when the alternative is (in many peoples eyes) a pile of socialist crap that is undelieverable, unworkable and unaffordable.
Which is valid in some areas of the Country.
Not so valid in others.
I am not commenting on what is deliverable, workable, or affordable. Simply how some may vote.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
True, some will vote regardless of those criteria - as evidenced by those going to see Corbyn speak
That is indeed an alternative view.That's one view. Another view is that most people are not doing too badly and either don't care or don't want to change. Especially when the alternative is (in many peoples eyes) a pile of socialist crap that is undelieverable, unworkable and unaffordable.
Which is valid in some areas of the Country.
Not so valid in others.
I am not commenting on what is deliverable, workable, or affordable. Simply how some may vote. and many of those have already decided anyway. Others will actually take my factors above into account when deciding how to vote. I think the last election was probably a good example of the latter in action. "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The point being that no one really knows how "some" or "others" are going to vote in 4 years time.
My prediction is that something will happen within that time to swing votes one way or the other.
I'd like to say something good, which would probably keep the current Government, but I fear for the World economy. If the Tories lose the economic platform then I cannot see them getting re elected.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
At last somebody who puts forward a rational attempt at how nationalisation could be achieved.HOW- The way(s) I would nationalize them:
1) Id make the government subsidies either convertible superannuated debt, with a simultaneous call date so that they could all be nationalized together, or,
2) I would require these quoted companies to create an extraordinary voting class of shares which would be issued by them and purchased by the government, again in exchange for the subsidies and for any government funded CapEx, not sure if you could just buy a controlling interest 35% or the takeover code would require 100% purchase, but at the point at which you're telling the markets that these companies will no longer get government assistance their share prices will tank anyway.
3) Of course once you have stated you are publicly re nationalizing these companies, they each would create a legal entity to hive off their UK operations (if they haven't already), otherwise E-on, for example, ends up with the UK govt owning a large percentage of its international operations
4) Hardball option is simply to remove subsidies (personally Id ask the EU courts for a ruling, Neelie Kroes or her successor loves nothing more than another chance to criticize a national government for giving money away), and you buy the assets and contracts cheap. This, btw, is what UK PLC SHOULD have done when they re-nationlised the banks, let them fail with the undertaking that the UK govt would buy all their asset & loan books upon bankruptcy making every single employment/bonus /jet leasing contract void
You get some pretty pissed off fund managers and the "we wlll relocate to Singapore" bank lobby starts up again but no-one really believes them as corporate HQs locations are based upon where the Chairmans wife can shop and where their kids can get good schooling.
As to the "monopoly versus free markets point", granted, I was simplifying, the Electricity companies are a collusive oligopoly but I didn't want this to be a microeconomics 102 lecture. The point being, to apply jolly old Michael Porters "five forces" framework, that without transparency on prices (how many consumers understand how much a pair of trousers cost? How many understand how much their electricity costs? ), consumers with high switching costs and little opportunity of substitutes, plus network effects limiting new entrants its a VERY imperfect market, made the more so by the fact that successive UK governments have dis-aggregated the Electicity distribution network in the same way they have in the rail preventing integration and leading to inflexibility of supplier prices.
The ONLY premise for liberalizing these markets in the first place (increased competition leading to higher efficiency and lower costs fro consumer) have been concretely disproved, so why not pocket the dividends and the CEOs salaries and bonuses for the wider UK population.
Not sure that the energy industry receives major subsidy outside of the green sector so unsure how removing this will pull the rug on the energy retailers. Got a link to subsidy info?
As for pulling the subsidies, the likely impact would be a rise in bills but as mentiined above, not sure gow big these are anyway.
Likewise, not sure where the divi info comes from. Only info I could find on a search was a Mirror article stating £7bn per year. Given the price of renationalising, we are looking at a payback period of several decades. Even if you are only talking about the retailers: if you include the distribution and infrastructure companies it will be closer to a century. And you still would not control the primary producers. Simply not anywhere near good financial sense, nor a good use of our money.
And the point about lack of competition still stands.
As for this being away to address the pay levels of a handful of individuals, what a waste of money...
In general the state should only run businesses where it is really essential. This is not essential, never mind affordable.
To be honest the subsidies point was, perhaps in error, taken from another post here of "12 billion pounds p.a. (I dont have a pound-sign on my keyboard!) ". But there will undoubtedly have been a "sweetener" to these businesses, as there was with the railcos, for them to enter the business. Its difficult to work out how many years that would actually take to buyback because, as I said, utilities equity valuations would tank once the Govt. stated their intent to re nationalize so that calculation is like trying to nail jelly to a wall. The estimated dividends is a "quick and dirty" analyses of mine, there are publicly stated estimates that the total dividend payout by UK plcs this year is 88 bn: http://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/news/111721/top-20-ftse-350-dividend-paying-stocks.aspx,
Utilities represent 25% by market cap of the FTSE 100, and given they are considered a "widows and orphans" stock its safe to assume that their dividend payout is in line with the overall market cap/dividend ratio of the whole market, if not much higher.
But to take a step back; Im not saying Corbyn should be elected, or even that his policies represent whats best for the country, simply that re-nationalization is feasible and probably affordable, and the representation in the press and here of this specific policy as a "loony left gone mad" is simply politics. Similarly, the posit that "in General the state should run businesses only when it is really essential" is your political point of view, not a fact. Id personally, despite being a free-market supply-sider ex I-Banker MBA, rephrase that as "the State should run businesses only when its clearly in the national interest so to do" and frankly, high directors remuneration and dividends represent, again with MY personal political focus, something which is not in the national interest.Fitter....healthier....more productive.....0 -
Agree with you on a lot of that. Although the quality of the opposition is alway relevant. Where the alternative is something that even party 'heavyweights' such as Gordon Brown issue a thinly veiled warning that a Corbyn led Labour would be neither credible nor electable then there is clearly a problem with the real and/or perceived quality of the opposition. Which brings me back to the original point of this threadThe point being that no one really knows how "some" or "others" are going to vote in 4 years time.
My prediction is that something will happen within that time to swing votes one way or the other.
I'd like to say something good, which would probably keep the current Government, but I fear for the World economy. If the Tories lose the economic platform then I cannot see them getting re elected.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I see your point.
Gordon Brown was neither credible, nor electable.
Does that mean that we should take the opposite view to him?
That would make Corbyn credible and electable. :?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
None of the 4 candidates seems to be the one that will bring Labour back into power in 2020. I've got the feeling the really smart guys in the party have avoided entering the leadership race, to avoid burning their chance... there is probably too much ground to cover, as too many electors have been lost.
Realistically, Labour target should be that of regaining part of Scotland and doing better in the rest of the nation, but I don't think they can win the next elections, as things stand...
That said, a lot can happen in 5 years and if there was a second recession anything could happen.
If I was Labour, I would campaign to give vote to citizens who have been residents and taxpayers for say 5 years or so... among the "foreigners" living here with no UK passport there is hardly any Tory, so Tories as a matter of fact represent a minority of the taxpayers and the job of the Government is to spend public money...left the forum March 20230 -
None of the 4 candidates seems to be the one that will bring Labour back into power in 2020. I've got the feeling the really smart guys in the party have avoided entering the leadership race, to avoid burning their chance... there is probably too much ground to cover, as too many electors have been lost.
Realistically, Labour target should be that of regaining part of Scotland and doing better in the rest of the nation, but I don't think they can win the next elections, as things stand...
That said, a lot can happen in 5 years and if there was a second recession anything could happen.
If I was Labour, I would campaign to give vote to citizens who have been residents and taxpayers for say 5 years or so... among the "foreigners" living here with no UK passport there is hardly any Tory, so Tories as a matter of fact represent a minority of the taxpayers and the job of the Government is to spend public money...
So that's the democratic answer is it, let even more non citizen's vote?
Some merit in the first part of your post though.0 -
So that's the democratic answer is it, let even more non citizen's vote?
It depends what is a citizen for you. I have an Italian passport but pay tax in the UK. Currently I can vote for the Italian parliament, so in essence deciding how other people's money should be spent, but I can't decide how my money should be spent. Isn't that a paradox?
I can vote for the EU elections for both countries, so I have double the power of say, when it comes to Europe. I can even vote for the local elections, to decide how my council tax is spent.
The current system allows a paedo or a murdered to have a say, but not a non UK taxpayer.
I could apply for a UK passport, but it's a rather expensive process, about a grand, give or take... which I would spend, if I didn't think the all system was wrong and if Labour was worth my vote... right now it's probably wasted money.left the forum March 20230 -
I think you are over-estimating the power of a vote Ugo. I've always exercised my right to vote but I don't feel I've influenced how governments spend money in any way at all. Once they have a five year term ahead of them they will do whatever they like.
No party would campaign on giving foreigners the vote, it would be political suicide as things stand.0 -
FWIW a poll last week suggested that about 28% would vote labour - whoever the leader turns out to be. Given the (by now really pretty well-established) tendency for polls to overstate Labour support, I'm guessing that we're pretty much down to the tribal "vote for a tin of spam if you pinned a red rose on it" core.
Another poll - sorry, cba to find & link it - asked supporters of each candidate about various issues and compared the answers to the population average: for Corbyn supporters, they tended to be 85% or so in favour of things that on average 15% of the population liked.
There was a wee story I came across somewhere recently about how Michael Foot, in 1983, just wouldn't accept what pollsters and advisors kept on telling him about how badly he was going to lose - because he was getting such a lot of love from the packed-out rallies of the faithful. Sound familiar? Corbyn may well get 300k "Labour members" to vote for him, but how many more would come a general election?
When he loses it will doubtless be a tragedy almost as terrible as the death of Bin Laden0 -
What's not to like about Corbyn as leader.
Sell out the British people of N Ireland.
Vast spending of money we don't have. Taxing people til they squeak.
Nationalisation of swathes of industry.
Anti Nato
Vice Chair of CND, a group he has belonged to for decades. A group shown to be supported financially by the KGB through the British Communist Party.
Return of union power.
Oh and he's not too fond of Jews.
The list goes on...
I'm sure the opinion polls would show a massive spike if he was elected Labour leader eh? 0 -
Meanwhile in the parallel universe of Leftybollox, £500m of investment in to Faslane, creating/safeguarding thousands of jobs is seen as bad news.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/trident-osborne-backs-faslane-with-500m-plan-1-38732250 -
Meanwhile in the parallel universe of Leftybollox, £500m of investment in to Faslane, creating/safeguarding thousands of jobs is seen as bad news.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/trident-osborne-backs-faslane-with-500m-plan-1-3873225
I think the concern is it's a £500m investment for an upgraded trident fleet, when the parliament debate on whether the UK should even upgrade the trident fleet has yet to be had.
The concern isn't necessarily the £500m.
Hence this quote:“Investment in Faslane is welcome – but it must be as a conventional base and not more money spent on weapons of mass destruction.”
Do keep up. It's getting tiresome fact checking you.0 -
Just got this email from John Prescott:
Hello comrade! (We can still say that can't we?)
I'm going to break the habit of a lifetime and be brief.
This leadership election is nearly over, and it looks like it's down to a choice between Jeremy Corbyn and Andy Burnham.
I was glad I encouraged MPs to nominate Jeremy to get him into this race because we really needed a debate on Labour's future.
And what a debate it's been! People are flocking to meetings, our number of members and supporters has tripled and there's a buzz about Labour again.
But now you need to decide who's the best person to lead us back to power in 2020.
And for me, that person is Andy Burnham.
From progressive renationalisation of our railways to integrating social care into our NHS, Andy has the ideas, experience and passion to unite this party and put our traditional values in a modern setting.
Interesting what you get in your inbox as a registered Labour supporter
They're getting desperate now if they have to resort to using Two Jags to sway people....
Also I know Prescott wasn't the most sophisticated bloke on earth, but why the **** has the swear filter edited out 'f l o c k i n g'? "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
None of the 4 candidates seems to be the one that will bring Labour back into power in 2020. I've got the feeling the really smart guys in the party have avoided entering the leadership race, to avoid burning their chance... there is probably too much ground to cover, as too many electors have been lost.
Realistically, Labour target should be that of regaining part of Scotland and doing better in the rest of the nation, but I don't think they can win the next elections, as things stand...
That said, a lot can happen in 5 years and if there was a second recession anything could happen.
If I was Labour, I would campaign to give vote to citizens who have been residents and taxpayers for say 5 years or so... among the "foreigners" living here with no UK passport there is hardly any Tory, so Tories as a matter of fact represent a minority of the taxpayers and the job of the Government is to spend public money...
What worries me is that by 2020 Osborne could be PM, so Labour need to be a credible alternative by then to take advantage of his unpopularity. Whether Corbyn will be leader by then is debatable but a lot of voters will have been affected by government cuts and generally disillusioned enough to decide enough is enough and will vote for a party which is apparently offering them something rather than taking away.
If I was a Tory voter I'd be very concerned with the way the current government are going and less bothered about who will be leading the opposition.0 -
Meanwhile in the parallel universe of Leftybollox, £500m of investment in to Faslane, creating/safeguarding thousands of jobs is seen as bad news.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/trident-osborne-backs-faslane-with-500m-plan-1-3873225
I think the concern is it's a £500m investment for an upgraded trident fleet, when the parliament debate on whether the UK should even upgrade the trident fleet has yet to be had.
The concern isn't necessarily the £500m.
Hence this quote:“Investment in Faslane is welcome – but it must be as a conventional base and not more money spent on weapons of mass destruction.”
Do keep up. It's getting tiresome fact checking you.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34101989
The first part of the video sees Osbourne talking about the investment and referring to 'This submarine' whilst pointing to a Vanguard class sub behind him, not its potential replacement. He answers a second question re Trident replacement and concedes that the decision has yet to be made.
He may or may not feel that the result of the vote is in the bag though, given the Tory majority and the number of pronuclear Labour MPs
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/george-osborne-vows-500m-submarine-base-investment-will-safeguard-scottish-jobs-10479133.html
The money seems to be earmarked for repairing and updating sea walls lifts and jetties for the base as it will be the focus of all submarine operations conducted by RN.
It appears that the facility will be updated regardless of whether Trident is replaced. The base is being updated so that it can house all the conventional subs as well.
So how much of this 500m is dependent on Parliament deciding to replace Trident?
Could it be that the Nats are squealing because they have been wrong footed and not because they think Parliament has somehow been bypassed?
Perhaps their irrelevance is finally dawning on them. Far from writing Miliband's budget as promised by Salmond, they are having to dance to Gideon's tune.0 -
So you're agreed no one local minds the investment? More what the investment is for?
Contrary to what you put before?0 -
The current labour leadership election is the equivalent of moving the deck chairs around on the Titanic.
Labour has decimated its core voting platform north of the border, UKIP has gained traction into eating up traditional labour voters in England and thats without the impact of the two hapless Ed's and the champagne socialists dream born in Hampstead which helped reignite the perception of the loony left. The internal division within the party and the resonance Corbyn has found with his left leaning ideology. Where would you put your political career in that equation?
Given the political opposition is so weak means no visible bogey man to loom large to galvanise the Tory party and its wafer thin majority. Throw in immigration, cutting the deficit or any other controversial policy means the Tory MP's in marginal seats will start to sweat come mid term and appreciate hay have a strong position with such a majority. Cameron has stated he will step down before the next election and that process in the Tory leadership transition will be interesting.
Me, I'd like to think that we'll be calling Boris, Prime Minister in 2020....“Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to cycle and he will realize fishing is stupid and boring”
Desmond Tutu0
