politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » North American pointers for John McDonnell’s growth strateg

Options
2»

Comments

  • John_M
    John_M Posts: 7,503
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    surbiton said:

    Some of them were public sector companies.

    Yes, they were, and once they were free of that constraint they prospered, upped their game dramatically, and have expanded overseas by acquisition.
    So we are agreed. Foreign nationalised companies good; British nationalised companies bad. Remarkably, that does seem to have been the position of both main parties from Mrs Thatcher's government onwards. Why?
    Good afternoon all. As I approach my 55th birthday, it's becoming ever more apparent that many people simply don't remember the days of nationalised industries; they've become mythologised.

    British Rail was crap. So was British Leyland. So was BT. The list goes on. If BR had been allowed to compete for overseas contracts, then perhaps it would have been different. However, that's a tautological argument; it was terrible, ergo would not have won anything.
  • OldKingCole
    OldKingCole Posts: 35,268
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    So we are agreed. Foreign nationalised companies good; British nationalised companies bad. Remarkably, that does seem to have been the position of both main parties from Mrs Thatcher's government onwards. Why?

    It is true that Germany and France have some successful public-sector companies, which the UK really hasn't had (with a few small exceptions, mostly technical operations like the National Physical Laboratory). I've often wondered exactly why that is, but perhaps it was the grip of the unions on Labour which was the underlying cause, leading to too much political interference. I'm not sure, TBH, but, in the UK at least, the lesson is very clear: privatised industries are hugely better than their nationalised equivalents.
    We have to remember that in the 80’s pretty well everything that could be sold off (apart from the railways abd Ryal Mail) was. BT, for example, as a public compnay was doing all sorts of research, the benefits of which were either picked up by the pension funds whci brought the company or sold off for short term gains. Or both.

    In short I blame Thatcher for taking the advice of the Mad Monk!
  • Scott_P
    Scott_P Posts: 51,453
    @PickardJE: Never boring around here: "Seumas Milne, a left-wing journalist who commissioned articles by Osama bin Laden." https://t.co/pZIKNhxfdI
  • John_M
    John_M Posts: 7,503
    edited October 2015
    OldKingCole said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    So we are agreed. Foreign nationalised companies good; British nationalised companies bad. Remarkably, that does seem to have been the position of both main parties from Mrs Thatcher's government onwards. Why?

    It is true that Germany and France have some successful public-sector companies, which the UK really hasn't had (with a few small exceptions, mostly technical operations like the National Physical Laboratory). I've often wondered exactly why that is, but perhaps it was the grip of the unions on Labour which was the underlying cause, leading to too much political interference. I'm not sure, TBH, but, in the UK at least, the lesson is very clear: privatised industries are hugely better than their nationalised equivalents.
    We have to remember that in the 80’s pretty well everything that could be sold off (apart from the railways abd Ryal Mail) was. BT, for example, as a public compnay was doing all sorts of research, the benefits of which were either picked up by the pension funds whci brought the company or sold off for short term gains. Or both.

    In short I blame Thatcher for taking the advice of the Mad Monk!
    BT spend around half a billion quid a year on R&D. That's the second highest spend in the global telecoms sector. I don't think your point stands.
  • OldKingCole
    OldKingCole Posts: 35,268
    edited October 2015
    John_M said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    surbiton said:

    Some of them were public sector companies.

    Yes, they were, and once they were free of that constraint they prospered, upped their game dramatically, and have expanded overseas by acquisition.
    So we are agreed. Foreign nationalised companies good; British nationalised companies bad. Remarkably, that does seem to have been the position of both main parties from Mrs Thatcher's government onwards. Why?
    Good afternoon all. As I approach my 55th birthday, it's becoming ever more apparent that many people simply don't remember the days of nationalised industries; they've become mythologised.

    British Rail was crap. So was British Leyland. So was BT. The list goes on. If BR had been allowed to compete for overseas contracts, then perhaps it would have been different. However, that's a tautological argument; it was terrible, ergo would not have won anything.
    Well, I do remember. BT was slow, BUT new technology was being developed.
  • watford30
    watford30 Posts: 3,474
    OldKingCole said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    So we are agreed. Foreign nationalised companies good; British nationalised companies bad. Remarkably, that does seem to have been the position of both main parties from Mrs Thatcher's government onwards. Why?

    It is true that Germany and France have some successful public-sector companies, which the UK really hasn't had (with a few small exceptions, mostly technical operations like the National Physical Laboratory). I've often wondered exactly why that is, but perhaps it was the grip of the unions on Labour which was the underlying cause, leading to too much political interference. I'm not sure, TBH, but, in the UK at least, the lesson is very clear: privatised industries are hugely better than their nationalised equivalents.
    We have to remember that in the 80’s pretty well everything that could be sold off (apart from the railways abd Ryal Mail) was. BT, for example, as a public compnay was doing all sorts of research, the benefits of which were either picked up by the pension funds whci brought the company or sold off for short term gains. Or both.

    In short I blame Thatcher for taking the advice of the Mad Monk!
    BT was doing some pretty useless, and worthless research whilst under public ownership. Privatisation set them free.
  • Richard_Nabavi
    Richard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    edited October 2015
    OldKingCole said:

    We have to remember that in the 80’s pretty well everything that could be sold off (apart from the railways abd Ryal Mail) was. BT, for example, as a public compnay was doing all sorts of research, the benefits of which were either picked up by the pension funds whci brought the company or sold off for short term gains. Or both.

    BT? Are you mad? Yes, it (or the GPO) was doing some good research, but as a telecoms utility it was gob-smackingly awful, and it was remarkably poor at actually bringing any decent products to market. A large part of my first job was involved in trying to circumvent the damage it did to British industry (not that ordinary consumers did any better). You could not find a clearer-cut, 100% unambiguous example of a privatisation being a massive boon.
  • Philip_Thompson
    Philip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    surbiton said:

    Some of them were public sector companies.

    Yes, they were, and once they were free of that constraint they prospered, upped their game dramatically, and have expanded overseas by acquisition.
    So we are agreed. Foreign nationalised companies good; British nationalised companies bad. Remarkably, that does seem to have been the position of both main parties from Mrs Thatcher's government onwards. Why?
    Because the dead hand of the British state is bad.

    If foreign owned companies are nationalised they're only operating in the UK thanks to full and free competition and not because of being the civil servants pick as its state owned.
    Maybe HMG should wonder what foreign nationalised industries do right that ours did wrong. Not only do German and Dutch state-owned rail companies run railways here, for instance, but they do so in Germany and the Netherlands as well.
    I think Richard is right, it is likely the unhealthy relationship between unions and politics that corrupted any chance of a well ran state utility.

    Though its a moot point now. Our private companies work, foreign companies can work (and only the best of the best of foreign companies try to compete here of course). Privatised utilities here neither worked nor are needed.
  • watford30
    watford30 Posts: 3,474
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    OldKingCole said:

    We have to remember that in the 80’s pretty well everything that could be sold off (apart from the railways abd Ryal Mail) was. BT, for example, as a public compnay was doing all sorts of research, the benefits of which were either picked up by the pension funds whci brought the company or sold off for short term gains. Or both.

    BT? Are you mad? Yes, it (or the GPO) was doing some good research, but as a telecoms utility it was gob-smackingly awful, and it was remarkably poor at actually bringing any decent products to market. A large part of my first job was involved in trying to circumvent the damage it did to British industry (not that ordinary consumers did any better). You could not find a clearer-cut, 100% unambiguous example of a privatisation being a massive boon.
    If BT were still under public ownership, we'd be phoning our comments into the Smithsons, who would then write them up on cards, before sticking them on a giant pinboard. The more fortunate and wealthier would send a Telex.
  • runnymede
    runnymede Posts: 2,536
    Laughable thread header again I'm afraid.
  • Richard_Nabavi
    Richard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    Meanwhile, it's a mad world:

    http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/germaine-greer-can-say-whatever-she-likes-about-trans-politics/
  • Barnesian
    Barnesian Posts: 9,220
    watford30 said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    So we are agreed. Foreign nationalised companies good; British nationalised companies bad. Remarkably, that does seem to have been the position of both main parties from Mrs Thatcher's government onwards. Why?

    It is true that Germany and France have some successful public-sector companies, which the UK really hasn't had (with a few small exceptions, mostly technical operations like the National Physical Laboratory). I've often wondered exactly why that is, but perhaps it was the grip of the unions on Labour which was the underlying cause, leading to too much political interference. I'm not sure, TBH, but, in the UK at least, the lesson is very clear: privatised industries are hugely better than their nationalised equivalents.
    We have to remember that in the 80’s pretty well everything that could be sold off (apart from the railways abd Ryal Mail) was. BT, for example, as a public compnay was doing all sorts of research, the benefits of which were either picked up by the pension funds whci brought the company or sold off for short term gains. Or both.

    In short I blame Thatcher for taking the advice of the Mad Monk!
    BT was doing some pretty useless, and worthless research whilst under public ownership. Privatisation set them free.
    How do you know that the research was "pretty useless and worthless"? They were the same researchers and the same bosses after privatisation. The difference was that BT ould borrow to finance its innovations in the financial markets (at 7-8% real cost of equity). Cheaper government finance (at 2-3% real) was not available (as now) for ideological reasons.

    We have been bogged down in the religion of "private finance good- public finance bad" for the last 35 years and it is crippling in the long term. It has given rise to PFI, and Chinese/French state financing of our infrastructure - the cost of which will be paid for by future generations.
  • John_M
    John_M Posts: 7,503
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Meanwhile, it's a mad world:

    http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/germaine-greer-can-say-whatever-she-likes-about-trans-politics/

    As a TG person, I'm on Greer's side, which surprises even me. This propensity for banning people from speaking because they're unfashionable is a loathsome trend.
  • John_M
    John_M Posts: 7,503
    edited October 2015
    Barnesian said:

    watford30 said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    So we are agreed. Foreign nationalised companies good; British nationalised companies bad. Remarkably, that does seem to have been the position of both main parties from Mrs Thatcher's government onwards. Why?

    It is true that Germany and France have some successful public-sector companies, which the UK really hasn't had (with a few small exceptions, mostly technical operations like the National Physical Laboratory). I've often wondered exactly why that is, but perhaps it was the grip of the unions on Labour which was the underlying cause, leading to too much political interference. I'm not sure, TBH, but, in the UK at least, the lesson is very clear: privatised industries are hugely better than their nationalised equivalents.
    We have to remember that in the 80’s pretty well everything that could be sold off (apart from the railways abd Ryal Mail) was. BT, for example, as a public compnay was doing all sorts of research, the benefits of which were either picked up by the pension funds whci brought the company or sold off for short term gains. Or both.

    In short I blame Thatcher for taking the advice of the Mad Monk!
    BT was doing some pretty useless, and worthless research whilst under public ownership. Privatisation set them free.
    How do you know that the research was "pretty useless and worthless"? They were the same researchers and the same bosses after privatisation. The difference was that BT ould borrow to finance its innovations in the financial markets (at 7-8% real cost of equity). Cheaper government finance (at 2-3% real) was not available (as now) for ideological reasons.

    We have been bogged down in the religion of "private finance good- public finance bad" for the last 35 years and it is crippling in the long term. It has given rise to PFI, and Chinese/French state financing of our infrastructure - the cost of which will be paid for by future generations.
    You seem to feel that revenue streams are never sufficient to fund R&D. Borrowing to fund R&D is an incredibly risky business strategy, for what I hope are blindingly obvious reasons.

    I have no issues with governments borrowing to invest, as long as the business case actually does deal with the projected returns in a concrete, quantitative manner (I would say 'like a proper business case', but I fear many people have never actually written one).
  • Pulpstar
    Pulpstar Posts: 79,813
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Meanwhile, it's a mad world:

    http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/germaine-greer-can-say-whatever-she-likes-about-trans-politics/

    Full circle.
  • isam
    isam Posts: 42,205
    Pulpstar said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Meanwhile, it's a mad world:

    http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/germaine-greer-can-say-whatever-she-likes-about-trans-politics/

    Full circle.
    https://twitter.com/bbcworld/status/657187227643084801
  • Pulpstar
    Pulpstar Posts: 79,813
    The dolls, named 'World War II Army Supply Duty - Bastian', are made in China by Dragon in Dream.
  • Scott_P
    Scott_P Posts: 51,453
    But if the choice is between a modicum of consistency and the opportunity to present Scotland as an endlessly-abused victim the SNP will always choose the latter. Grievance and resentment are their stock in trade and consistency, to say nothing of logic, matters not a jot. If that requires Pete Wishart to make a chump of himself then, lo, Pete Wishart is only to happy to make a chump of himself. Greater love hath no man than that he empty his brain for his country.
    http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/the-snps-attitude-to-english-votes-for-english-laws-is-as-hypocritical-as-it-is-tedious/
  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    FPT Mr. F, nothing wrong with Mr. Burns. Successful, well-liked and long-lived.

    FPT Mr. Barber, there is an argument to legalise drugs, regulate them and tax them. Interestingly, cigarettes are moving the other way (even more regulation and taxation) which is increasing rather than diminishing smuggling.

    There are also those who want e-cigarettes to be treated that way.

    And the odd lunatic who wants to make eating meat socially unacceptable.

    On an unrelated note, I asked this on Twitter but the site may find it of philosophical interest: If a Star Wars stormtrooper fires at at a Star Trek redshirt, do they hit?
  • John_M
    John_M Posts: 7,503
    Scott_P said:

    But if the choice is between a modicum of consistency and the opportunity to present Scotland as an endlessly-abused victim the SNP will always choose the latter. Grievance and resentment are their stock in trade and consistency, to say nothing of logic, matters not a jot. If that requires Pete Wishart to make a chump of himself then, lo, Pete Wishart is only to happy to make a chump of himself. Greater love hath no man than that he empty his brain for his country.
    http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/the-snps-attitude-to-english-votes-for-english-laws-is-as-hypocritical-as-it-is-tedious/

    Oh now you've done it. It was lovely and peaceful here, and now it's going to be full of Natrage.
  • Scott_P
    Scott_P Posts: 51,453
    John_M said:

    Oh now you've done it. It was lovely and peaceful here, and now it's going to be full of Natrage.

    Surely not!

    EVEL apparently spells the end of the Union. I expect our separatist friends to be full of good cheer at the news. Maybe still celebrating, even.
  • Scott_P
    Scott_P Posts: 51,453
    Morris_Dancer said:

    If a Star Wars stormtrooper fires at at a Star Trek redshirt, do they hit?

    When was the last time a Stormtrooper ever hit the thing they were firing at?
  • rcs1000
    rcs1000 Posts: 60,714
    DavidL said:

    They have actually exploited their shale reserves in a massive way and are very close to becoming a net oil producer again

    That's not true.

    US oil production is about 10m barrels a day (give or take), and consumption is about 16m.
  • Barnesian
    Barnesian Posts: 9,220
    edited October 2015
    John_M said:

    Barnesian said:

    watford30 said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    So we are agreed. Foreign nationalised companies good; British nationalised companies bad. Remarkably, that does seem to have been the position of both main parties from Mrs Thatcher's government onwards. Why?


    In short I blame Thatcher for taking the advice of the Mad Monk!
    BT was doing some pretty useless, and worthless research whilst under public ownership. Privatisation set them free.
    How do you know that the research was "pretty useless and worthless"? They were the same researchers and the same bosses after privatisation. The difference was that BT ould borrow to finance its innovations in the financial markets (at 7-8% real cost of equity). Cheaper government finance (at 2-3% real) was not available (as now) for ideological reasons.

    We have been bogged down in the religion of "private finance good- public finance bad" for the last 35 years and it is crippling in the long term. It has given rise to PFI, and Chinese/French state financing of our infrastructure - the cost of which will be paid for by future generations.
    You seem to feel that revenue streams are never sufficient to fund R&D. Borrowing to fund R&D is an incredibly risky business strategy, for what I hope are blindingly obvious reasons.

    I have no issues with governments borrowing to invest, as long as the business case actually does deal with the projected returns in a concrete, quantitative manner (I would say 'like a proper business case', but I fear many people have never actually written one).
    I wasn't talking about borrowing to invest in R&D. I was talking about investing in the exploitation of the innovative technologies that came out of the R&D.

    And yes - you need a business case. However it is very difficult to forecast demand and technological development 25-60 years into the future - which is what large scale infrastructure projects require. Think Heathrow 3rd Runway, Hinkley C, HS2 etc.

    The business cases are supported by spreasdsheet models underpinned by very questionable assumptions about the future. Just read the technical papers on Heathrow 3rd runway.

    I think the business cases for these long term infrastucture projects should not be based on single line projections or a small number of "scenarios". They should be based on their robustness to widely varying developments and the strategic options the projects would provide. The narrative should be more important than the spreadsheets which induce a "Computer says Yes" mentality.
  • SimonStClare
    SimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Scott_P said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    If a Star Wars stormtrooper fires at at a Star Trek redshirt, do they hit?

    When was the last time a Stormtrooper ever hit the thing they were firing at?
    Tsk - As long as the target is big and stationary then even stormtroopers sometimes hit the mark - As Obi-Wan Kenobi himself said: "These blast-points... Only Imperial Stormtroopers are so precise."
  • rcs1000
    rcs1000 Posts: 60,714
    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    They have actually exploited their shale reserves in a massive way and are very close to becoming a net oil producer again

    That's not true.

    US oil production is about 10m barrels a day (give or take), and consumption is about 16m.
    In fact, US oil production is about 9.4 million barrels a day (source: EIA), and consumption is 19 million barrels a day (source: BP).

    So, the US produces fewer than half the barrels they consume.
  • Scott_P
    Scott_P Posts: 51,453
    SimonStClare said:

    Tsk - As long as the target is big and stationary then even stormtroopers sometimes hit the mark - As Obi-Wan Kenobi himself said: "These blast-points... Only Imperial Stormtroopers are so precise."

    Right enough. I guess they are just camera shy then; can't perform when people are watching...
  • MTimT
    MTimT Posts: 7,034
    "She argues that the state can and should be an Entrepreneur developing technologies and shaping markets"

    While I have a great deal of sympathy with her viewpoint (even as a conservative on economic matters), am a fan of Ken Arrow's work on this matter, and believe that the Bells Labs were a wonderful thing, I think this quote mis-states what actually happens in the US.

    The State does not act as an entrepreneur backing applications - rather it is a funder of both basic and applied research, most frequently without an expectation of ROI. This is a very important distinction - the US federal government generally does not act the entrepreneur or even the VC, and when it does (e.g. solar energy), its record is not impressive.

    Thus the national laboratories are funded to do very basic research, and then additional funds are made available to the labs and the individual scientists concerned to commercialize their science, with much of the decision as to what gets funded delegated to the lab directors (not the government). Likewise, DARPA and other branches of the DoD (and to a lesser extent other federal departments such as Energy) fund both large and small companies to develop a whole range of basic science, enabling technologies and applications (e.g. funding for anti-virals or vaccines related to potential biological warfare agents).

    It is amazing how much of what is in the consumer markets today has come into being because of NASA or DoD spending.
  • rcs1000
    rcs1000 Posts: 60,714
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Meanwhile, it's a mad world:

    http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/germaine-greer-can-say-whatever-she-likes-about-trans-politics/

    It's a mad world when Germaine Greer is being defended by the Spectator.
  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    edited October 2015
    Mr. P, a long time ago.

    In a galaxy far, far away.

    Edited extra bit: Mr. StClare, I like to think Obi-wan is just being intensely sarcastic.
  • MikeL
    MikeL Posts: 7,809
    edited October 2015
    Haven't seen any mention of this but there is a 2nd absolutely critical vote in the House of Lords next week - this time on Tuesday.

    LDs are tabling a fatal motion to strike down the Statutory Instrument re the completion of the transition to Individual Voter Registration.

    This will stop names being removed from the Electoral Register before the 2016 elections and more critically before the point used as the basis for the Boundary review starting early next year.

    May sound dramatic but this vote will quite literally have a direct impact on the result of the 2020 GE.

    See link - and go down to Tuesday in the Lords:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34614462
  • foxinsoxuk
    foxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. P, a long time ago.

    In a galaxy far, far away.

    Edited extra bit: Mr. StClare, I like to think Obi-wan is just being intensely sarcastic.

    This is not the explanation that you are looking for!

    Surely what we observe in the Star Wars films is the beneficial effect of the Force, warping time and space so that our heroes are protected.
  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    Mr. L, that sounds utterly indefensible.

    No time to ram it through with the Parliament Act?
  • isam
    isam Posts: 42,205
    Those sexual offenders rehab courses seem to work as well you'd expect

    https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/657571962210930688
  • Scott_P
    Scott_P Posts: 51,453
    MikeL said:

    Haven't seen any mention of this but there is a 2nd absolutely critical vote in the House of Lords next week - this time on Tuesday.

    The Lib Dem Lord on Daily Politics was quite clear; their aim is constitutional vandalism as a route to Lords reform

    The bit they may not have thought of is given their vote share almost all the Lib Dem Lords would be culled in any reform
  • GarethoftheVale2
    GarethoftheVale2 Posts: 2,350
    Philip_Thompson said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    surbiton said:

    Some of them were public sector companies.

    Yes, they were, and once they were free of that constraint they prospered, upped their game dramatically, and have expanded overseas by acquisition.
    So we are agreed. Foreign nationalised companies good; British nationalised companies bad. Remarkably, that does seem to have been the position of both main parties from Mrs Thatcher's government onwards. Why?
    Because the dead hand of the British state is bad.

    If foreign owned companies are nationalised they're only operating in the UK thanks to full and free competition and not because of being the civil servants pick as its state owned.
    Maybe HMG should wonder what foreign nationalised industries do right that ours did wrong. Not only do German and Dutch state-owned rail companies run railways here, for instance, but they do so in Germany and the Netherlands as well.
    I think Richard is right, it is likely the unhealthy relationship between unions and politics that corrupted any chance of a well ran state utility.

    Though its a moot point now. Our private companies work, foreign companies can work (and only the best of the best of foreign companies try to compete here of course). Privatised utilities here neither worked nor are needed.
    Philip hits the nail on the head. The big problem is the Unions who are the enemy of innovation. It's not hard to see why: innovation leads to greater efficiency which leads to union members losing their jobs
  • MikeL
    MikeL Posts: 7,809
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. L, that sounds utterly indefensible.

    No time to ram it through with the Parliament Act?

    These are SIs - I think the Parliament Act only applies to Bills.

    They would presumably have to have a complete brand new Bill just to introduce a simple regulation.

    Very, very serious this - I don't want to sound overdramatic but it's entirely possible that the result of a vote in the House of Lords on Tuesday will decide the outcome of the 2020 GE.

    And there appears to be total silence - almost nobody appears to even be aware of what is going on!
  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    Mr. L, we'll have to see how it goes. One hopes the Conservative and crossbench Lords don't allow that kind of nonsense to succeed.

    I said before I thought Farron was a muppet. I seem to have overestimated his character.
  • MikeL
    MikeL Posts: 7,809
    Worth noting we are going to face exactly the same thing again in Autumn 2018 when the Statutory Instrument for the Boundary Commission reports goes to the Lords.

    I wonder if the optimum outcome for Cameron is to lose the Tax Credits vote on Mon - thereby giving him excuse to appoint more Peers - which would then prove vital for later in the Parliament.
  • GeoffM
    GeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Excellent - an article starting "Don Brind on Friday" which immediately saves 10 mins of my life because can skip straight down to the comments and bypass the crapola.

    I noticed the final line in bold as I scrolled down, though.
    Kevin Keegan is commenting on politics now??
  • NickPalmer
    NickPalmer Posts: 21,724
    MikeL said:

    Haven't seen any mention of this but there is a 2nd absolutely critical vote in the House of Lords next week - this time on Tuesday.

    LDs are tabling a fatal motion to strike down the Statutory Instrument re the completion of the transition to Individual Voter Registration.

    This will stop names being removed from the Electoral Register before the 2016 elections and more critically before the point used as the basis for the Boundary review starting early next year.

    May sound dramatic but this vote will quite literally have a direct impact on the result of the 2020 GE.

    See link - and go down to Tuesday in the Lords:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34614462

    Yes, that's significant. In general I think it's bad practice for Governments - and I include Labour Governments in the past - slipping through very controversial changes with SIs. It's not reasonably possible to argue that either the tax credit changes or the boundary review basis are minor technical issues, which is what SIs are supposed to be used for.

    I wonder (I don't have any information - this is just speculation) whether the Lords may in practice hold back from blocking the tax credit changes but then proceed to block the boundary stuff, on the basis that both are highly controversial but he former is financial and the latter isn't.
  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    Mr. Palmer, is the Salisbury Convention (apologies if I got the name wrong) only applicable to manifestos, or does it include finance bills?

    I think I recall Farron saying in an interview a couple of months ago he'd have no problem with Lib Dem peers ignoring the Salisbury Convention to vote against Conservative manifesto commitments.
  • GeoffM
    GeoffM Posts: 6,071
    surbiton said:

    watford30 said:

    perdix said:

    JEO said:

    FrankBooth said:

    Sean_F said:


    One thing that the State is not, is entrepreneurial.

    British Leyland, Blue Streak, British Steel, the National Coal Board, can all attest to that.

    Purely British examples. Fact is so many of America's advances have relied in some way on public investment. In the almost hysterical determination (particularly in the US) over the last 40 years to decry socialism, that's been forgotten.
    Public investment which has then been taken on and maximised to its potential based on a very free market with low taxes and a population that works very hard. Labour wants the public investment, but not the business-friendly economy or the work-incentivised population that takes it to fruition.

    The US space programme (sp) provided a large technological stimulus for US tech industry. I would guess that it resulted in large improvements in the design and manufacture of integrated circuits (lower weight. less volume more efficient power consumption) but I have not seen a detailed breakdown of the resulting spin offs.

    It's always interesting to remember that NASA outsourced the space programme to private businesses such as Rockwell, and McDonnell-Douglas. Not sure Corbyn's lefty chum would have done that.
    Still it was public money. Israel does the same. In fact, renewal of Trident is public money - wrongly to be spent.
    There is no such thing as public money - it is taxpayers money.
    Tax revenue is private money being seized with menaces and given out to others in exchange for votes.
  • MarkHopkins
    MarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    I see the Lords coup is continuing.
  • Richard_Nabavi
    Richard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    NickPalmer said:

    It's not reasonably possible to argue that either the tax credit changes or the boundary review basis are minor technical issues, which is what SIs are supposed to be used for.

    The boundary review change is just an administrative confirmation of something already approved by parliament under the last government (which, incidentally, was the only government in recent times elected with the support of an absolute majority of voters).
  • GeoffM
    GeoffM Posts: 6,071
    NickPalmer said:

    MikeL said:

    Haven't seen any mention of this but there is a 2nd absolutely critical vote in the House of Lords next week - this time on Tuesday.

    LDs are tabling a fatal motion to strike down the Statutory Instrument re the completion of the transition to Individual Voter Registration.

    This will stop names being removed from the Electoral Register before the 2016 elections and more critically before the point used as the basis for the Boundary review starting early next year.

    May sound dramatic but this vote will quite literally have a direct impact on the result of the 2020 GE.

    See link - and go down to Tuesday in the Lords:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34614462

    Yes, that's significant. In general I think it's bad practice for Governments - and I include Labour Governments in the past - slipping through very controversial changes with SIs. It's not reasonably possible to argue that either the tax credit changes or the boundary review basis are minor technical issues, which is what SIs are supposed to be used for.

    I wonder (I don't have any information - this is just speculation) whether the Lords may in practice hold back from blocking the tax credit changes but then proceed to block the boundary stuff, on the basis that both are highly controversial but he former is financial and the latter isn't.
    No they aren't. That's not what they are supposed to be for at all. That's just not true.

    It's all in the (to give it the full title) "Statutory Instruments Act 1946: An Act to repeal the Rules Publication Act 1893, and to make further provision as to the instruments by which statutory powers to make orders, rules, regulations and other subordinate legislation are exercised."
  • Pulpstar
    Pulpstar Posts: 79,813
    The one thing I don't get about the tax credit business is that it isn't a "money" bill when it is solely to do with cash !
  • JosiasJessop
    JosiasJessop Posts: 46,250
    John_M said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    surbiton said:

    Some of them were public sector companies.

    Yes, they were, and once they were free of that constraint they prospered, upped their game dramatically, and have expanded overseas by acquisition.
    So we are agreed. Foreign nationalised companies good; British nationalised companies bad. Remarkably, that does seem to have been the position of both main parties from Mrs Thatcher's government onwards. Why?
    Good afternoon all. As I approach my 55th birthday, it's becoming ever more apparent that many people simply don't remember the days of nationalised industries; they've become mythologised.

    British Rail was crap. So was British Leyland. So was BT. The list goes on. If BR had been allowed to compete for overseas contracts, then perhaps it would have been different. However, that's a tautological argument; it was terrible, ergo would not have won anything.
    I actually think you're wrong in saying it was 'terrible'. BR were actually very efficiently running a declining network with very little cash. It was nowhere near as good for the paying passenger as the privatised network, but it was doing a heck of a lot with the little money it had.

    They also had world-beating R&D, the partial destruction of which is one of the biggest tragedies of the privatisation.

    The problems are:
    *) that pre-the EU directive they would not have been allowed to bid for foreign contracts.
    *) their mindset would not have allowed them to do it.
  • Scott_P
    Scott_P Posts: 51,453
    @nicholaswatt: Cenotaph U-turn complete. Old system of wreath laying by opposition politicians restored
  • richardDodd
    richardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Has the Far North of Britain wing closed down.. not a peep about the vote last night....probably still trying to workout what it means for them..
  • watford30
    watford30 Posts: 3,474
    MikeL said:

    Worth noting we are going to face exactly the same thing again in Autumn 2018 when the Statutory Instrument for the Boundary Commission reports goes to the Lords.

    I wonder if the optimum outcome for Cameron is to lose the Tax Credits vote on Mon - thereby giving him excuse to appoint more Peers - which would then prove vital for later in the Parliament.

    Flood the house with another couple of hundred. If they're going to play silly buggers, do the same. It's disgraceful that so many unelected people have such sway over those who were elected, looking in particular at the massively over represented Lib Dems, who really should know better.
  • HurstLlama
    HurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    watford30 said:



    Flood the house with another couple of hundred. ....

    And if Dave is reading this and wondering where to find a couple of hundred reliable peers from, well modesty forbids. However if one were to receive the call one could, regardless of one's own wishes, make oneself once again available to the service of the nation. I'll just claim the £150 a day minimum and even pay my own rail fares

    P.S. Dave, sorry about the shallow PR spiv thing, but you know how it is once the political blood gets flowing.
  • Scott_P
    Scott_P Posts: 51,453
    Ruth Davidson is on HIGNFY tonight; the first Scottish female politician to appear apparently
  • MikeL
    MikeL Posts: 7,809
    edited October 2015
    NickPalmer said:

    MikeL said:

    Haven't seen any mention of this but there is a 2nd absolutely critical vote in the House of Lords next week - this time on Tuesday.

    LDs are tabling a fatal motion to strike down the Statutory Instrument re the completion of the transition to Individual Voter Registration.

    This will stop names being removed from the Electoral Register before the 2016 elections and more critically before the point used as the basis for the Boundary review starting early next year.

    May sound dramatic but this vote will quite literally have a direct impact on the result of the 2020 GE.

    See link - and go down to Tuesday in the Lords:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34614462

    Yes, that's significant. In general I think it's bad practice for Governments - and I include Labour Governments in the past - slipping through very controversial changes with SIs. It's not reasonably possible to argue that either the tax credit changes or the boundary review basis are minor technical issues, which is what SIs are supposed to be used for.

    I wonder (I don't have any information - this is just speculation) whether the Lords may in practice hold back from blocking the tax credit changes but then proceed to block the boundary stuff, on the basis that both are highly controversial but he former is financial and the latter isn't.
    Nick - the change to Individual Voter Registration has already been done by full Act of Parliament in the last Parliament.

    As I understand it the SI the Lords is voting on on Tuesday is merely an "order" to implement the final cut-off date for the change - ie the date by which you must have individually registered to stay on the register.
  • logical_song
    logical_song Posts: 10,082
    MikeL said:

    Haven't seen any mention of this but there is a 2nd absolutely critical vote in the House of Lords next week - this time on Tuesday.

    LDs are tabling a fatal motion to strike down the Statutory Instrument re the completion of the transition to Individual Voter Registration.

    This will stop names being removed from the Electoral Register before the 2016 elections and more critically before the point used as the basis for the Boundary review starting early next year.

    May sound dramatic but this vote will quite literally have a direct impact on the result of the 2020 GE.

    See link - and go down to Tuesday in the Lords:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34614462

    A continuation of the Coalition by other means.
  • MikeL
    MikeL Posts: 7,809
    edited October 2015
    BBC Parliamentary Correspondent Mark D'Arcy seems to be suggesting that the LD fatal motion on Tax Credits is likely to fail and it will therefore boil down to the Lab motion to delay the SI.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34614462

    It's worth noting that if the Conservatives can get approx a net 50 to 60 votes from the Crossbenchers (ie they win the Crossbenchers about 65-15 or a bit more) then they could scape a win even with Lab + LD voting against.

    I think they are 100% certain to lose the Individual Voter Registration vote on Tues but they may have an outside chance even on the Lab delaying motion on Mon.
  • isam
    isam Posts: 42,205
    https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/657592353012649984
  • Sandpit
    Sandpit Posts: 56,045
    Afternoon all. With all the Lords shenanigans from the opposition parties, will we see see a few new Tory lords announced every week, until the rebellions stop?
  • RobD
    RobD Posts: 60,608
    Sandpit said:

    Afternoon all. With all the Lords shenanigans from the opposition parties, will we see see a few new Tory lords announced every week, until the rebellions stop?

    There is a sizable pool of ex-peers who would be glad to render assistance!
  • MikeL
    MikeL Posts: 7,809
    edited October 2015
    Sandpit said:

    Afternoon all. With all the Lords shenanigans from the opposition parties, will we see see a few new Tory lords announced every week, until the rebellions stop?

    Almost certainly not - for starters they all have to go through the House of Lords Appointments Commission which will take months.

    And I think Cameron's hand is restricted to some degree - eg it was reported that he was only allowed 30 Con Peers in the recent list - not sure who by - Cabinet Secretary maybe?

    (He only ended up with 26 due to rejections).
  • malcolmg
    malcolmg Posts: 44,523
    Scott_P said:

    John_M said:

    Oh now you've done it. It was lovely and peaceful here, and now it's going to be full of Natrage.

    Surely not!

    EVEL apparently spells the end of the Union. I expect our separatist friends to be full of good cheer at the news. Maybe still celebrating, even.
    Loyalists still dribbling I see. Can they ever say anything other than SNP BAD. Oh how we laugh at the chumps.
  • MarkHopkins
    MarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    MikeL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Afternoon all. With all the Lords shenanigans from the opposition parties, will we see see a few new Tory lords announced every week, until the rebellions stop?

    Almost certainly not - for starters they all have to go through the House of Lords Appointments Commission which will take months.

    And I think Cameron's hand is restricted to some degree - eg it was reported that he was only allowed 30 Con Peers in the recent list - not sure who by - Cabinet Secretary maybe?

    (He only ended up with 26 due to rejections).
    But if the Lords don't play by the "rules", then why should the PM?
  • malcolmg
    malcolmg Posts: 44,523
    Scott_P said:

    Ruth Davidson is on HIGNFY tonight; the first Scottish female politician to appear apparently

    Ha Ha Ha , exaggeration of the century there, she makes one of your 3 claims , just.
  • malcolmg
    malcolmg Posts: 44,523
    richardDodd said:

    Has the Far North of Britain wing closed down.. not a peep about the vote last night....probably still trying to workout what it means for them..

    WE are not all as thick as you doddery. We know well what it means.
  • Plato_Says
    Plato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Withering indeed.
    SeanT said:

    Brilliant, withering explanation of why Seumas "Stalin was a dude" Milne, is really NOT OK.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2015/10/i-wanted-believe-jeremy-corbyn-i-cant-believe-seumas-milne …

  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    Mr. G, that's a shade ungallant.

    Mr. T, can we be surprised, given Corbyn himself has marched alongside and posed with posters featuring Stalin?

    It's crackers.
  • richardDodd
    richardDodd Posts: 5,472
    I see the Tartan Midge Wrangler has finally rolled off his damp smelly mattress..he can be quite entertaining..but boring..
  • JackW
    JackW Posts: 14,787
    MarkHopkins said:

    MikeL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Afternoon all. With all the Lords shenanigans from the opposition parties, will we see see a few new Tory lords announced every week, until the rebellions stop?

    Almost certainly not - for starters they all have to go through the House of Lords Appointments Commission which will take months.

    And I think Cameron's hand is restricted to some degree - eg it was reported that he was only allowed 30 Con Peers in the recent list - not sure who by - Cabinet Secretary maybe?

    (He only ended up with 26 due to rejections).
    But if the Lords don't play by the "rules", then why should the PM?
    The PM doesn't own the "rules" and the Conservatives have no right to a majority in the Lords.



  • NickPalmer
    NickPalmer Posts: 21,724
    MikeL said:



    Nick - the change to Individual Voter Registration has already been done by full Act of Parliament in the last Parliament.

    As I understand it the SI the Lords is voting on on Tuesday is merely an "order" to implement the final cut-off date for the change - ie the date by which you must have individually registered to stay on the register.

    Yes, that's my understanding too. But it's controversial, since there has been little national effort to get people to register beyond the usual routine efforts, and every constituency in Britain will have its boundaries changed as a result. I doubt if many people in safe seats are aware that they will be partly disenfranchised if they don't get their fingers out.

    The counter-argument is yeah, well, more fool them, they should get on with registering. But that's not real life - busy people in cities who move frequently simpler don't realise an urgent deadline is approaching.
  • GeoffM
    GeoffM Posts: 6,071
    MikeL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Afternoon all. With all the Lords shenanigans from the opposition parties, will we see see a few new Tory lords announced every week, until the rebellions stop?

    Almost certainly not - for starters they all have to go through the House of Lords Appointments Commission which will take months.

    And I think Cameron's hand is restricted to some degree - eg it was reported that he was only allowed 30 Con Peers in the recent list - not sure who by - Cabinet Secretary maybe?

    (He only ended up with 26 due to rejections).
    Repeal the appropriate part of the Act which expelled the hereditaries.
    That should produce a good block of pre-heated peers.
  • JackW
    JackW Posts: 14,787
    GeoffM said:

    MikeL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Afternoon all. With all the Lords shenanigans from the opposition parties, will we see see a few new Tory lords announced every week, until the rebellions stop?

    Almost certainly not - for starters they all have to go through the House of Lords Appointments Commission which will take months.

    And I think Cameron's hand is restricted to some degree - eg it was reported that he was only allowed 30 Con Peers in the recent list - not sure who by - Cabinet Secretary maybe?

    (He only ended up with 26 due to rejections).
    Repeal the appropriate part of the Act which expelled the hereditaries.
    That should produce a good block of pre-heated peers.
    Not quite sure that would get past the Lords .... :smile:

  • dr_spyn
    dr_spyn Posts: 11,312
    isam said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Meanwhile, it's a mad world:

    http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/germaine-greer-can-say-whatever-she-likes-about-trans-politics/

    Full circle.
    https://twitter.com/bbcworld/status/657187227643084801
    Listen, don't mention the score! I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it all right.
  • GeoffM
    GeoffM Posts: 6,071
    NickPalmer said:

    MikeL said:



    Nick - the change to Individual Voter Registration has already been done by full Act of Parliament in the last Parliament.

    As I understand it the SI the Lords is voting on on Tuesday is merely an "order" to implement the final cut-off date for the change - ie the date by which you must have individually registered to stay on the register.

    Yes, that's my understanding too. But it's controversial, since there has been little national effort to get people to register beyond the usual routine efforts, and every constituency in Britain will have its boundaries changed as a result. I doubt if many people in safe seats are aware that they will be partly disenfranchised if they don't get their fingers out.

    The counter-argument is yeah, well, more fool them, they should get on with registering. But that's not real life - busy people in cities who move frequently simpler don't realise an urgent deadline is approaching.
    So it's gone from a big thing being pushed through using a tool for small things, to perfectly within the rules but controversial because people are lazy.

    You have no self-awareness, do you. Or no shame. It's hard to tell which.
  • GeoffM
    GeoffM Posts: 6,071
    JackW said:

    GeoffM said:

    MikeL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Afternoon all. With all the Lords shenanigans from the opposition parties, will we see see a few new Tory lords announced every week, until the rebellions stop?

    Almost certainly not - for starters they all have to go through the House of Lords Appointments Commission which will take months.

    And I think Cameron's hand is restricted to some degree - eg it was reported that he was only allowed 30 Con Peers in the recent list - not sure who by - Cabinet Secretary maybe?

    (He only ended up with 26 due to rejections).
    Repeal the appropriate part of the Act which expelled the hereditaries.
    That should produce a good block of pre-heated peers.
    Not quite sure that would get past the Lords .... :smile:

    Unfortunately not, but the quality of the many of the returning peers would remind us what we lost after Blair's constitutional vandalism.
  • MikeL
    MikeL Posts: 7,809
    edited October 2015
    MarkHopkins said:

    MikeL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Afternoon all. With all the Lords shenanigans from the opposition parties, will we see see a few new Tory lords announced every week, until the rebellions stop?

    Almost certainly not - for starters they all have to go through the House of Lords Appointments Commission which will take months.

    And I think Cameron's hand is restricted to some degree - eg it was reported that he was only allowed 30 Con Peers in the recent list - not sure who by - Cabinet Secretary maybe?

    (He only ended up with 26 due to rejections).
    But if the Lords don't play by the "rules", then why should the PM?
    I'm sure Cameron would love to do anything to just get some more Con Peers in the Lords.

    But the problem is that it's fine for people to post quick one-liners on an internet forum - he has to deal with the real world - what is he actually going to do?

    If he tries to appoint 100 new Peers tomorrow I suspect the Cabinet Secretary / House of Lords Appointments Commission / the Queen (or a combination of them) will either say "No" or the whole thing will get bogged down for months if not years whilst the appointments grind through the process.

    I suspect all he can practically do is try and edge it his way - maybe try and get another say 25 through within the next 6 months.
  • malcolmg
    malcolmg Posts: 44,523
    edited October 2015
    richardDodd said:

    I see the Tartan Midge Wrangler has finally rolled off his damp smelly mattress..he can be quite entertaining..but boring..

    Some of us have to work Dicky, can't all sit out in Italy supping wine in the sun.

    PS: only the finest of mattresses for me
  • Plato_Says
    Plato_Says Posts: 11,822
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11951445/SNP-rejects-proposal-to-cut-short-remembrance-ceremony-forcing-plan-to-be-scrapped.html
    Plans to cut short remembrance ceremony scrapped after pressure from SNP
    The Scottish National Party was understood to be unhappy with plans to force opposition leaders to lay their wreaths together to keep veterans out of the cold
  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    New thread.
  • ydoethur
    ydoethur Posts: 74,256
    Plato_Says said:

    Withering indeed.

    SeanT said:

    Brilliant, withering explanation of why Seumas "Stalin was a dude" Milne, is really NOT OK.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2015/10/i-wanted-believe-jeremy-corbyn-i-cant-believe-seumas-milne …

    Similar sort of comment from Kate Godfrey:

    https://medium.com/@KateVotesLabour/so-mr-corbyn-what-made-you-appoint-facism-apologist-seumas-milne-a17699132dae#.mbjpp9od0

    Reprinted in the Independent here:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/so-jeremy-corbyn-what-made-you-appoint-seumas-milne-an-apologist-for-murderous-dictators-a6702391.html

    I have wondered if Milne - a notoriously slippery character with an absolutely unabashed starry-eyed love for Stalinism, even though he has claimed, not very convincingly, that he is not a Stlainist - might be the source for some of the misconceptions one or two posters seem to have about the grimness of life in the Soviet Union. But I think, on the whole, that Marxists.org is a likelier source.
  • Dair
    Dair Posts: 6,108
    surbiton said:

    perdix said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Sean_F said:


    One thing that the State is not, is entrepreneurial.

    British Leyland, Blue Streak, British Steel, the National Coal Board, can all attest to that.

    Advanced Gas Cooled Reactors, Concorde, British Railways, British Shipbuilders.
    It is noteworthy that German State Railways (DB) saw fit to buy the UK rail freight business but also bought Arriva , the large train and bus company, as well as others. Can you imagine British Rail ever doing that kind of thing?

    It is noteworthy that the motto of the German development bank is "Germany first".

    Exactly. Why can't we do that ? Because we are too short-termists.
    If the UK government were concerned about British business doing well then Dido Harding wouldn't be head of Talk Talk.

Categories