LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

rjsterry

I wonder if, when they eventually summon up the courage to actually get rid of May, the party will have the nous to go for someone like Rory Stewart.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

I wonder if, when they eventually summon up the courage to actually get rid of May, the party will have the nous to go for someone like Rory Stewart.

Bizarrely he may have gone to the wrong school

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I wonder if, when they eventually summon up the courage to actually get rid of May, the party will have the nous to go for someone like Rory Stewart.

Bizarrely he may have gone to the wrong school

He's clearly overqualified

verylonglegs

His Wiki page suggests he may be human, definitely overqualified.

tangled_metal

rjsterry wrote:

And now the PM herself leaking from supposedly confidential cross party negotiations to write an article in the Sunday papers. :roll:

That's not leaking, that's briefing. You do know the difference don't you?

I am not sure, but I think if the PM's inner circle like you and you're one of their kind then you can't leak only brief. Otherwise if you're useful and getting it what they want to get out you're briefing. If you mess up on that you're leaking. And lastly if you've made enemies in big enough numbers and they get to the PM then you're leaking and you've lost the trust / favour of the PM then you get the sack.

I am possibly wrong but it does all seem to be a seedy, cesspool that needs the skills of a prince in the family of Machiavelli.

robert88

Tangled Metal wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

And now the PM herself leaking from supposedly confidential cross party negotiations to write an article in the Sunday papers. :roll:

That's not leaking, that's briefing. You do know the difference don't you?

I am not sure, but I think if the PM's inner circle like you and you're one of their kind then you can't leak only brief. Otherwise if you're useful and getting it what they want to get out you're briefing. If you mess up on that you're leaking. And lastly if you've made enemies in big enough numbers and they get to the PM then you're leaking and you've lost the trust / favour of the PM then you get the sack.

I am possibly wrong but it does all seem to be a seedy, cesspool that needs the skills of a prince in the family of Machiavelli.

Sir Humphrey: The ship of state, Bernard, is the only ship that leaks from the top.

Really it's a bit like House of Cards mixed up with Yes Minister.

We have had at least two murders, both women as it happens. And we haven't done Brexit yet, either.

rick_chasey

Some of you will appreciate.

"If, as Thatcher said, the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money, the problem with Thatcherism is that you eventually run out of other people’s assets to sell."

rjsterry

Be interesting to see how many of those who said they'll leave if Johnson is elected will actually go through with it, and where they'll go to. Obviously it's a terrible idea for the party, but I'm not sure the rank and file can resist him.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Some of you will appreciate.

"If, as Thatcher said, the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money, the problem with Thatcherism is that you eventually run out of other people’s assets to sell."

Only problem is, socialism is still around.

All the Iron Lady was doing was privatizing what shouldn't been in state ownership in the first place. Job was done, so the statement above is correct in a way

sgt.pepper

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Some of you will appreciate.

"If, as Thatcher said, the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money, the problem with Thatcherism is that you eventually run out of other people’s assets to sell."

Only problem is, socialism is still around.

All the Iron Lady was doing was privatizing what shouldn't been in state ownership in the first place. Job was done, so the statement above is correct in a way

Yeah, who needs a functioning rail network anyway.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Some of you will appreciate.

"If, as Thatcher said, the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money, the problem with Thatcherism is that you eventually run out of other people’s assets to sell."

Only problem is, socialism is still around.

All the Iron Lady was doing was privatizing what shouldn't been in state ownership in the first place. Job was done, so the statement above is correct in a way

What like the probation service?

Pross

rjsterry wrote:

Be interesting to see how many of those who said they'll leave if Johnson is elected will actually go through with it, and where they'll go to. Obviously it's a terrible idea for the party, but I'm not sure the rank and file can resist him.

As I've said in the Brexit thread I think it would ultimately finish him as he won't get the Brexit he is promising. A few months then ousted by his colleagues or through a GE might not be a bad scenario and then hopefully they can fine a grown up to take over.

surrey_commuter

Other than Grayling, Bojo has to be the worse possible PM. A part of me would find it fascinating.

tangled_metal

How about the sacked defence secretary? Would he not be worse than BJ? Although grayling is undoubtedly the worst candidate for leadership of the Tory party. Great let's give it to him! At least that's what the self destructive side of my tory psyche says (in line with the current tory practise, I'm nothing out no one for tory orthodoxy! ).

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Some of you will appreciate.

"If, as Thatcher said, the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money, the problem with Thatcherism is that you eventually run out of other people’s assets to sell."

Only problem is, socialism is still around.

All the Iron Lady was doing was privatizing what shouldn't been in state ownership in the first place. Job was done, so the statement above is correct in a way

What like the probation service?

What was the rationale for BP, BT, British Steel etc to be state owned? The like of those were the big ones I am referring to.

Stevo_666

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Some of you will appreciate.

"If, as Thatcher said, the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money, the problem with Thatcherism is that you eventually run out of other people’s assets to sell."

Only problem is, socialism is still around.

All the Iron Lady was doing was privatizing what shouldn't been in state ownership in the first place. Job was done, so the statement above is correct in a way

Yeah, who needs a functioning rail network anyway.

Network Rail does seem to be a large part of the problem there, true.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Some of you will appreciate.

"If, as Thatcher said, the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money, the problem with Thatcherism is that you eventually run out of other people’s assets to sell."

Only problem is, socialism is still around.

All the Iron Lady was doing was privatizing what shouldn't been in state ownership in the first place. Job was done, so the statement above is correct in a way

What like the probation service?

What was the rationale for BP, BT, British Steel etc to be state owned? The like of those were the big ones I am referring to.

I think you misunderstood the original quote.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Some of you will appreciate.

"If, as Thatcher said, the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money, the problem with Thatcherism is that you eventually run out of other people’s assets to sell."

Only problem is, socialism is still around.

All the Iron Lady was doing was privatizing what shouldn't been in state ownership in the first place. Job was done, so the statement above is correct in a way

What like the probation service?

What was the rationale for BP, BT, British Steel etc to be state owned? The like of those were the big ones I am referring to.

I think you misunderstood the original quote.

Think about it - the list of nationalised assets is finite and once the ones that don't sensibly fit into state ownership are sold, that's it. Whereas socialists' capacity to waste money is pretty much unlimited and certainly not time limited.

rick_chasey

Yes you definitely misunderstood the quote.

In what context do you think it was posted?

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Yes you definitely misunderstood the quote.

In what context do you think it was posted?

How have I misunderstood it?

rick_chasey

What do you think it was referring to?

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

What do you think it was referring to?

You quoted someone without explaining what you thought was the context, so you now get a second chance to explain properly. Off you go...

robert88

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Some of you will appreciate.

"If, as Thatcher said, the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money, the problem with Thatcherism is that you eventually run out of other people’s assets to sell."

Only problem is, socialism is still around.

All the Iron Lady was doing was privatizing what shouldn't been in state ownership in the first place. Job was done, so the statement above is correct in a way

What like the probation service?

What was the rationale for BP, BT, British Steel etc to be state owned? The like of those were the big ones I am referring to.

I think you misunderstood the original quote.

Think about it - the list of nationalised assets is finite and once the ones that don't sensibly fit into state ownership are sold, that's it. Whereas socialists' capacity to waste money is pretty much unlimited and certainly not time limited.

The road network could be privatised, i.e. the trunk network. Governments seem to be too scared to sell off roads to private operators who would recoup their investment through tolls. The system operates in other countries.

Jez mon

Robert88 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Some of you will appreciate.

"If, as Thatcher said, the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money, the problem with Thatcherism is that you eventually run out of other people’s assets to sell."

Only problem is, socialism is still around.

All the Iron Lady was doing was privatizing what shouldn't been in state ownership in the first place. Job was done, so the statement above is correct in a way

What like the probation service?

What was the rationale for BP, BT, British Steel etc to be state owned? The like of those were the big ones I am referring to.

I think you misunderstood the original quote.

Think about it - the list of nationalised assets is finite and once the ones that don't sensibly fit into state ownership are sold, that's it. Whereas socialists' capacity to waste money is pretty much unlimited and certainly not time limited.

The road network could be privatised, i.e. the trunk network. Governments seem to be too scared to sell off roads to private operators who would recoup their investment through tolls. The system operates in other countries.

My anecdotal experience in Italy suggests that tolls on the autostrada encourage hgvs to drive on their equivalent of small a roads.

Note that's not backed up by research so may well be incorrect.

Why should BP be publically owned, well why shouldn't the tax pater benefit from oil being exploited in the North Sea. British Steel, well if you're going to argue that we should have an independent nuclear deterant then I think its pretty clear that we should keep the capability to make the steel for it. If the only way of keeping steel plants open is nationalisation then so be it. British Telecom, well its a complex interconnected system that is absolutely vital for any enterprise. Some form of central control is key.

rjsterry

Jez mon wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Some of you will appreciate.

"If, as Thatcher said, the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money, the problem with Thatcherism is that you eventually run out of other people’s assets to sell."

Only problem is, socialism is still around.

All the Iron Lady was doing was privatizing what shouldn't been in state ownership in the first place. Job was done, so the statement above is correct in a way

What like the probation service?

What was the rationale for BP, BT, British Steel etc to be state owned? The like of those were the big ones I am referring to.

I think you misunderstood the original quote.

Think about it - the list of nationalised assets is finite and once the ones that don't sensibly fit into state ownership are sold, that's it. Whereas socialists' capacity to waste money is pretty much unlimited and certainly not time limited.

The road network could be privatised, i.e. the trunk network. Governments seem to be too scared to sell off roads to private operators who would recoup their investment through tolls. The system operates in other countries.

My anecdotal experience in Italy suggests that tolls on the autostrada encourage hgvs to drive on their equivalent of small a roads.

Note that's not backed up by research so may well be incorrect.

Why should BP be publically owned, well why shouldn't the tax pater benefit from oil being exploited in the North Sea. British Steel, well if you're going to argue that we should have an independent nuclear deterant then I think its pretty clear that we should keep the capability to make the steel for it. If the only way of keeping steel plants open is nationalisation then so be it. British Telecom, well its a complex interconnected system that is absolutely vital for any enterprise. Some form of central control is key.

Of particular irony is that some privatised utilities and railway franchises have ended up owned by the state owned equivalents of other countries.

Stevo_666

Jez mon wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Some of you will appreciate.

"If, as Thatcher said, the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money, the problem with Thatcherism is that you eventually run out of other people’s assets to sell."

Only problem is, socialism is still around.

All the Iron Lady was doing was privatizing what shouldn't been in state ownership in the first place. Job was done, so the statement above is correct in a way

What like the probation service?

What was the rationale for BP, BT, British Steel etc to be state owned? The like of those were the big ones I am referring to.

I think you misunderstood the original quote.

Think about it - the list of nationalised assets is finite and once the ones that don't sensibly fit into state ownership are sold, that's it. Whereas socialists' capacity to waste money is pretty much unlimited and certainly not time limited.

The road network could be privatised, i.e. the trunk network. Governments seem to be too scared to sell off roads to private operators who would recoup their investment through tolls. The system operates in other countries.

My anecdotal experience in Italy suggests that tolls on the autostrada encourage hgvs to drive on their equivalent of small a roads.

Note that's not backed up by research so may well be incorrect.

Why should BP be publically owned, well why shouldn't the tax pater benefit from oil being exploited in the North Sea. British Steel, well if you're going to argue that we should have an independent nuclear deterant then I think its pretty clear that we should keep the capability to make the steel for it. If the only way of keeping steel plants open is nationalisation then so be it. British Telecom, well its a complex interconnected system that is absolutely vital for any enterprise. Some form of central control is key.

You could argue 'taxpayer benefit' for nationalising any business that makes a profit. So which ones would you choose and why?

Although you seem to be saying in the same post that we should pump taxpayers money into loss making business such as British Steel to keep them open. Same question there - which loss makers do you support with taxpayers money and why?

And what do you think it would cost to acquire all of these businesses from the current owners? Ditto propping up loss makers.

Be interested in your view as these are points that Labour is totally unable to grasp.

Jez mon

Stevo 666 wrote:

You could argue 'taxpayer benefit' for nationalising any business that makes a profit. So which ones would you choose and why?

Although you seem to be saying in the same post that we should pump taxpayers money into loss making business such as British Steel to keep them open. Same question there - which loss makers do you support with taxpayers money and why?

And what do you think it would cost to acquire all of these businesses from the current owners? Ditto propping up loss makers.

Be interested in your view as these are points that Labour is totally unable to grasp.

In BP/British Gas's case, its the exploitation of a natural asset that arguably should belong to the state, which arguably could give reason for nationalisation.

I don't actually think it's a great reason though.

In the case of the loss makers, I think there is a better argument for some of them, in cases where they provide a product which is of strategic importance, or where they are temporarily loss making.

So high grade materials for our military would seem to be a good example where there is a strategic advantage to propping up loss making ventures.

On the temporary loss making companies, imagine what Derby would be like had the government not stepped in during development of the RB 211. Or what would have happened if the government hadn't helped the bankers in 2008...

Where does the money come from, the same place it comes from when you have to pay 1000s of steel workers who have just been put on the dole.

rick_chasey

https://www.channel4.com/news/probation ... ng-reforms

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44590366

Stevo_666

Jez mon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

You could argue 'taxpayer benefit' for nationalising any business that makes a profit. So which ones would you choose and why?

Although you seem to be saying in the same post that we should pump taxpayers money into loss making business such as British Steel to keep them open. Same question there - which loss makers do you support with taxpayers money and why?

And what do you think it would cost to acquire all of these businesses from the current owners? Ditto propping up loss makers.

Be interested in your view as these are points that Labour is totally unable to grasp.

In BP/British Gas's case, its the exploitation of a natural asset that arguably should belong to the state, which arguably could give reason for nationalisation.

I don't actually think it's a great reason though.

In the case of the loss makers, I think there is a better argument for some of them, in cases where they provide a product which is of strategic importance, or where they are temporarily loss making.

So high grade materials for our military would seem to be a good example where there is a strategic advantage to propping up loss making ventures.

On the temporary loss making companies, imagine what Derby would be like had the government not stepped in during development of the RB 211. Or what would have happened if the government hadn't helped the bankers in 2008...

Where does the money come from, the same place it comes from when you have to pay 1000s of steel workers who have just been put on the dole.

To me there are big holes in lot of that. You could argue that companies like BP were once to a large extent UK based but enterprises of this size are now usually global with most of their ops outside the UK. So the idea of spending hundreds of billions to buy geographically diversified MNCs falls flat.

As for strategic interests, how many products are truly strategic outside of wartime? And typically products that may be deemed strategic will produced my large groups with multiple other product lines/ business lines. How do you prop that up?

Loss makers - there was was temporary case for some to prevent worse but the idea was not to keep them ( as in the bank example you mentioned).

Steel workers on the dole - what if the cost of propping up industries like that is more than the dole. And how long for? Business and industry evolves and trying to stop the clock with state subsidy is generally not a good long term strategy if industrial sectors are no longer viable.

Like I say above, where do you draw the line?

Stevo_666

Good article in the Telegraph on the idiocy of Labour's plans to nationalise various sectors (in this case, the energy sector). It's easy to be swayed by Labour policies like this if people don't think it through and don't understand business and economics very well.

"Ever since the shock result of the EU referendum, business has largely been consumed by one issue: Brexit. The overwhelming majority of business figures, at least those that lead large companies, backed Remain.

Indeed many, with the backing of big lobby groups like the CBI, have become consumed with trying to derail Britain’s exit from the European Union, issuing repeated warnings about the damage it could wreak.

These days, something much more troubling is keeping our captains of industry awake at night: the prospect of Corbyn-led government.

With very good reason: thanks to the utter ineptitude of Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn is knocking on the door of Number 10. Indeed, the latest polls suggest Labour is now a government-in-waiting.

Business is absolutely right to fear such an outcome. In fact, the whole country should be scared: Corbyn’s hard-Left agenda would lead the country down a path of untold destruction, bringing prosperity to an abrupt end and propelling the UK back to the dark days of the 1970s.

Last week, we got yet another taste of just how ruinous Labour would be to the economy, after its plans to nationalise the entire energy industry leaked into the public domain.

Presumably someone in the shadow cabinet hoped that by revealing the detail of such a controversial proposal, it might gain a crumb of credibility.

If so, it backfired horribly. Instead the document laid bare just what a stunningly brutal assault on democracy and free markets Labour’s nationalisation plan would represent.

Not only is it proposing to seize control of the entire energy network, but it plans to do so without paying proper market value for the assets.

This would amount to nothing less than state-sponsored robbery. Corbyn and his band of brothers wrongly think that such an act would benefit ordinary people, those it mistakenly thinks big business repeatedly tramples on during the course of their everyday activities.

What Labour bizarrely doesn’t seem to realise is that this very act would impoverish millions: those that own shares in many of the companies it seeks to appropriate, or through pension funds that would also be left nursing huge losses. Entire life savings would evaporate overnight.

Once again, such a proposal exposes Corbyn’s deep misunderstanding of how enterprise and commerce work. The opposition truly is economically-illiterate – embarrassingly so.

It also has a limited grasp of basic property rights, it seems. An asset grab of this scale would trigger a tsunami of legal action from investors left out of pocket. Labour has repeatedly cited the example of Northern Rock as a company that was nationalised without recourse to existing shareholders, but the bank was effectively bust.

Similarly when Rolls-Royce was taken into public ownership in 1971, the aircraft engine maker was struggling to meet its bills.

When the Atlee Labour government took control of the mines, railways and utilities in the 1940s, it was because they had been ravaged by the Second World War.

As the Institution of Civil Engineers points out, doing so to healthy, solvent entities is an entirely different proposition.

Then there’s the cost. One study estimates that the upfront cost of Corbyn’s nationalisation programme would be in the region of £176bn if you include the energy and water sectors, the Royal Mail, and the entire PFI industry, as Labour has proposed.

However, if Corbyn sought to nationalise the entire energy industry, rather than just the networks, the overall bill would rocket to somewhere in the region of £300bn.

Even at the lower estimate of £176bn, that is equivalent to 19 years of the UK’s defence equipment budget, or the cost of building 2.93 million council houses, the Centre for Policy Studies reckons. Such a figure would also represent around 10pc cent of the national debt or £6,471 for every household, it says.

The cost of taking over the water suppliers alone is estimated at £90bn, equal to the entire education budget or twice the annual NHS wage bill. This is the sort of logic and financial management that we are dealing with.

On top of the upfront cost, the government would also need to meet the long-term investment requirements on the water sector, which one think tank believes will total around £100bn over the next 25 years.

Yet, Britain’s reputation as a first-rate investment proposition would be trashed. Foreign investment would evaporate overnight.

Who then would cough up the money needed to modernise the power network and keep the lights on? The taxpayer.

The pound would almost certainly collapse. Indeed, Corbyn’s Marxist chancellor John McDonnell has admitted that the shadow cabinet has been “war gaming” for such an event.

The stock market would also go into freefall. If Labour’s supporters think this is another version of “Project Fear”, there are plenty of precedents to draw from.

As we explain today, France’s great social experiment of the early 1980s was over after just two years, brought down by capital flight that at its peak was running at billions of francs a day.

Other key Corbyn reforms would be equally damaging. A hike in corporation tax is likely to result in firms investing less and reducing wages, and a so-called Robin Hood tax on the City would hurt pensioners.

The highly-respected independent think tank, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, has warned that plans to increase the minimum wage for over-25s at a faster pace than earnings will also have a negative impact on jobs.

Faced with the possible obliteration of the shareholder base, you think companies are speaking out in their droves. Not so. Apart from the odd dissenting voice, such as National Grid’s John Pettigrew, big business is conspicuous by its silence, fearful of possible retribution for speaking out.

Some are hurriedly drawing up plans to for offshore vehicles that offer better protection. Others are hoping that a blitz of recent reform will encourage leniency.

Corbyn’s threat to seize the water industry has prompted some of the worst culprits to clean up their act.

Corbyn and his comrades will be emboldened by public opinion. There is strong support for nationalisation of some of our biggest sectors.

In a 2017 Populus poll, more than three-quarters of the public backed state ownership of the railways, electricity and gas, and water.

But presented with the facts, one can only pray common sense prevails. The dead hand of Labour risks bankrupting the entire country."