UK Politics Thread II: Gladstone's Revenge

[The Nihilistic view]

The privatisation of nationalised Russian industries after the fall of communism was done so badly that the officials bought it themselves.
It is a very different situation than in the UK, where people were allowed to- and did- buy shares in companies when they were sold in the 1980s.

It's not that different to what occurred in the UK. The politics were much more open and the scale was smaller, but was similarly disastrous.

Privatisation is not inherently a bad thing. How privatisation of state firms has been done in the UK has been catastrophic. And though you probably write that off as rhetoric, I do not make that statement lightly.
When the telecoms, energy, rail and other industries were all privatised - we were promised lower prices through competition.

We didn't get that. Privatisation, as was sold to us, failed outright. We got cartels, collusion, monopoly and price-fixing.
The CEGB kept electricity prices basically static for forty years. It invested in power infrastructure and was a world leader in nuclear innovation. The most reliable nuclear programme in the world? The indigenous British graphite-moderated reactor families.

The former state firms were gelded and butchered by privatisation. Several were bought by the state firms of other countries, who made little to no investment in the systems they bought, which are now stretched to limit and woefully out of date.

I suppose this is where you pull out some graphs to prove it? I don't ecpect you to find any for mau of the undustries since every time I have looked the real price has fallen till about the early 2000s before increasing with the general increase in energy costs.

For example. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 79we08.htm

As we know from about 2007 prices increased due to energy costs.

So there are problems, but for every one of those there is one to level at the previous state run firms at least as bad. From the three day week, to taking BT months to put in a phoneline to more strikes than a box of matches to falling passenger numbers BR closing large parts of the lines and also suffered from lack of investment.

I think there is an underlying trend at play. People love to hate railways in Britain and to a certain extent the other utilites. People hated British Rail, they seem to hate it now. Though for most tickets I think in real terms the prices are down. Itis the anytime singles that have shot up in price, I remember reading they are only about 5% of tickets sold. Most tickets are season, off peak or other cheap advanced tickets they ar similar or slightly cheaper . People are certainly using them more, numbers shot up as soon as they were privitised, last time I looked sometime in the last thread on NS (try and find it in a bit) we have better train punctuallity and reliability and satisfaction than Germany France and Italy according to the EU. Something the EU is good for finally!

So yeah people love to hate the railways, we moan about them but when it gets past that we actually have a pretty decent system comared to others.

[Vassenor]

It's not that different to what occurred in the UK. The politics were much more open and the scale was smaller, but was similarly disastrous.

Privatisation is not inherently a bad thing. How privatisation of state firms has been done in the UK has been catastrophic. And though you probably write that off as rhetoric, I do not make that statement lightly.
When the telecoms, energy, rail and other industries were all privatised - we were promised lower prices through competition.

We didn't get that. Privatisation, as was sold to us, failed outright. We got cartels, collusion, monopoly and price-fixing.
The CEGB kept electricity prices basically static for forty years. It invested in power infrastructure and was a world leader in nuclear innovation. The most reliable nuclear programme in the world? The indigenous British graphite-moderated reactor families.

The former state firms were gelded and butchered by privatisation. Several were bought by the state firms of other countries, who made little to no investment in the systems they bought, which are now stretched to limit and woefully out of date.

I suppose this is where you pull out some graphs to prove it? I don't ecpect you to find any for mau of the undustries since every time I have looked the real price has fallen till about the early 2000s before increasing with the general increase in energy costs.

For example. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 79we08.htm

As we know from about 2007 prices increased due to energy costs.

So there are problems, but for every one of those there is one to level at the previous state run firms at least as bad. From the three day week, to taking BT months to put in a phoneline to more strikes than a box of matches to falling passenger numbers BR closing large parts of the lines and also suffered from lack of investment.

I think there is an underlying trend at play. People love to hate railways in Britain and to a certain extent the other utilites. People hated British Rail, they seem to hate it now. Though for most tickets I think in real terms the prices are down. Itis the anytime singles that have shot up in price, I remember reading they are only about 5% of tickets sold. Most tickets are season, off peak or other cheap advanced tickets they ar similar or slightly cheaper . People are certainly using them more, numbers shot up as soon as they were privitised, last time I looked sometime in the last thread on NS (try and find it in a bit) we have better train punctuallity and reliability and satisfaction than Germany France and Italy according to the EU. Something the EU is good for finally!

So yeah people love to hate the railways, we moan about them but when it gets past that we actually have a pretty decent system comared to others.

#wrongkindofsnow

[Moctina]

I was just reading The Sunday Times, who have published their rich list for the UK & Ireland.
As always, exceptionally informative, and interesting. So many wealthy individuals in retail, property & finance, to name but a few. Proof of how well this country is doing now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33266799
UK has 2.3m children living in poverty, government says

'Poverty'
I tend to think of the 2.3 million children, as horrific as it is, to be living in Western poverty- not like at all the poverty seen in Africa.
Very, very sad. But not, I think, a reflection of our economic success.

[Vassenor]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33266799
UK has 2.3m children living in poverty, government says

'Poverty'
I tend to think of the 2.3 million children, as horrific as it is, to be living in Western poverty- not like at all the poverty seen in Africa.
Very, very sad. But not, I think, a reflection of our economic success.

So we're resorting to whataboutism then?

And this is before we get to the government redefining legal poverty to make it look like they reduced the number of people below the line.

[Moctina]

'Poverty'
I tend to think of the 2.3 million children, as horrific as it is, to be living in Western poverty- not like at all the poverty seen in Africa.
Very, very sad. But not, I think, a reflection of our economic success.

So we're resorting to whataboutism then?

And this is before we get to the government redefining legal poverty to make it look like they reduced the number of people below the line.

'A child is defined as being in poverty when living in a household with an income below 60% of the UK's average.'

This does not necessarily mean that the child lives in 'poverty'.
It means the parents earn a small wage. There is quite a difference.

[Dooom35796821595]

So we're resorting to whataboutism then?

And this is before we get to the government redefining legal poverty to make it look like they reduced the number of people below the line.

'A child is defined as being in poverty when living in a household with an income below 60% of the UK's average.'

This does not necessarily mean that the child lives in 'poverty'.
It means the parents earn a small wage. There is quite a difference.

Right, because having so many live so badly isn't a measure of how bad our economy is, but a bunch of rich elitists shows how well we're doing?

[The Liberated Territories]

So we're resorting to whataboutism then?

And this is before we get to the government redefining legal poverty to make it look like they reduced the number of people below the line.

'A child is defined as being in poverty when living in a household with an income below 60% of the UK's average.'

This does not necessarily mean that the child lives in 'poverty'.
It means the parents earn a small wage. There is quite a difference.

Well I think poverty is better defined as net worth. So you should still be rich even if you owned a mansion and made under 40k a year.

[Questers]

Poorest fifth of UK households have an average income of £5,500. Per annum. There are currently 26 million households in the UK.

In other words, there are approximately 5 million households with an average income of £5,500, before tax or benefits.

Add in benefits and this increases to £7,500. £144 a week. Not bad if you're a single adult. Not amazing, but fine. Add in a dependent, though...

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... 2015-06-29

This is for 2015.

Also median income of £24,500 is not really an indication the country is doing amazingly well, frankly.

[Geilinor]

So we're resorting to whataboutism then?

And this is before we get to the government redefining legal poverty to make it look like they reduced the number of people below the line.

'A child is defined as being in poverty when living in a household with an income below 60% of the UK's average.'

This does not necessarily mean that the child lives in 'poverty'.
It means the parents earn a small wage. There is quite a difference.

That is the definition of poverty in most developed countries.

[Hydesland]

Poorest fifth of UK households have an average income of £5,500. Per annum. There are currently 26 million households in the UK.

In other words, there are approximately 5 million households with an average income of £5,500, before tax or benefits.

Add in benefits and this increases to £7,500. £144 a week. Not bad if you're a single adult. Not amazing, but fine. Add in a dependent, though...

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... 2015-06-29

This is for 2015.

Also median income of £24,500 is not really an indication the country is doing amazingly well, frankly.

No, £7,500 is the amount of benefits, making the total amount of the poorest 5th £15,500.

[Questers]

Oh oops.

It is still not a good % of the average household income though.

[Wolfmanne2]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... referendum

Jesus Christ.

[Ifreann]

Drawing comparisons between the referendums.

It seems to me that it's just a great fucking game for politicians. "Lets give politics to the masses and watch them descend into a spiteful morass of increasingly embittered and embittering fools for a few months over a pointless facet. Then we'll have the vote and just do whatever the fuck we fancy anyways."

That's it - ban referendums....

We'll have to hold a referendum on that.

[Val Halla]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/25/uk-must-leave-european-convention-on-human-rights-theresa-may-eu-referendum

Jesus Christ.

I don't think I would trust Theresa May on human rights issues

[MERIZoC]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/25/uk-must-leave-european-convention-on-human-rights-theresa-may-eu-referendum

Jesus Christ.

I don't think I would trust Theresa May on human rights issues

It's an important reminder to leftists who think leaving the EU might be a good idea—remember that you aren't in charge.

[The Archregimancy]

Drawing comparisons between the referendums.

It seems to me that it's just a great fucking game for politicians. "Lets give politics to the masses and watch them descend into a spiteful morass of increasingly embittered and embittering fools for a few months over a pointless facet. Then we'll have the vote and just do whatever the fuck we fancy anyways."

That's it - ban referendums....

Well, there's certainly an argument that they're wholly alien to the Westminster system, have been a fairly radical innovation within the unwritten British constitution over the last 40 years, and are run on an inconsistent ad hoc basis while simultaneously becoming a very expensive means for cheap political point scoring rather than increasing the democratic voice of the electorate; unless the circumstances are highly unusual (or a referendum is constitutionally necessary) politicians in democracies generally only agree to referendums they know they're going to win, or which they're happy to lose.

But given that they're apparently not going away, I'd much rather pass a Referendum Act that regularises how they're run and outlines over which issues they can be held rather than ban them entirely.

[Mollary]

Drawing comparisons between the referendums.

It seems to me that it's just a great fucking game for politicians. "Lets give politics to the masses and watch them descend into a spiteful morass of increasingly embittered and embittering fools for a few months over a pointless facet. Then we'll have the vote and just do whatever the fuck we fancy anyways."

That's it - ban referendums....

Well, there's certainly an argument that they're wholly alien to the Westminster system, have been a fairly radical innovation within the unwritten British constitution over the last 40 years, and are run on an inconsistent ad hoc basis while simultaneously becoming a very expensive means for cheap political point scoring rather than increasing the democratic voice of the electorate; unless the circumstances are highly unusual (or a referendum is constitutionally necessary) politicians in democracies generally only agree to referendums they know they're going to win, or which they're happy to lose.

But given that they're apparently not going away, I'd much rather pass a Referendum Act that regularises how they're run and outlines over which issues they can be held rather than ban them entirely.

There is this.

[Olivaero]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/25/uk-must-leave-european-convention-on-human-rights-theresa-may-eu-referendum

Jesus Christ.

Ah all we need to do to be more secure is to scrap a few of thoes pesky human rights! Gee I sure am glad these people are in government.

[The Archregimancy]

Well, there's certainly an argument that they're wholly alien to the Westminster system, have been a fairly radical innovation within the unwritten British constitution over the last 40 years, and are run on an inconsistent ad hoc basis while simultaneously becoming a very expensive means for cheap political point scoring rather than increasing the democratic voice of the electorate; unless the circumstances are highly unusual (or a referendum is constitutionally necessary) politicians in democracies generally only agree to referendums they know they're going to win, or which they're happy to lose.

But given that they're apparently not going away, I'd much rather pass a Referendum Act that regularises how they're run and outlines over which issues they can be held rather than ban them entirely.

There is this.

That's not what I had in mind.

The 2000 Act primarily deals with the basic logistical management of a referendum under the newly founded Electoral Commission; however, the decision on the mechanisms which might trigger a referendum, the type of issue that might warrant a referendum, and even the franchise for a referendum (compare, inter alia, the minimum voting ages for the Scottish and EU referendums) are still largely wholly left to an ad hoc decision of the government of the day.

I'm not suggesting that we need totally remove any form of government discretion over referendums; but a better statutory structure on their role within the British constitution wouldn't hurt.

[Val Halla]

I don't think I would trust Theresa May on human rights issues

It's an important reminder to leftists who think leaving the EU might be a good idea—remember that you aren't in charge.

I know. But I don't think that I trust her opinion. Y'know. Obvious reasons.

I'm on the fence. I don't trust the EU and I don't trust the government either.

[Major-Tom]

Apparently Mr. Farage condemned Boris for his "Kenya" statements.

Damn, Boris, I know you're gaffe prone, but that was truly a stupid, stupid, stupid statement.

[The Nihilistic view]

Thing is. She is pushing for this whilst in the EU. I don't think it matters to the EU vote. She won't change her mind if we leave or stay.

To me it entirly depends what a British bill would have in it. But I don't think it any more or less likely to happen in or out the EU.

[Souseiseki]

fuck may

controversial, i know

[Valaran]

Apparently Mr. Farage condemned Boris for his "Kenya" statements.

Damn, Boris, I know you're gaffe prone, but that was truly a stupid, stupid, stupid statement.

Way to backtrack there Farage.

[Major-Tom]

Apparently Mr. Farage condemned Boris for his "Kenya" statements.

Damn, Boris, I know you're gaffe prone, but that was truly a stupid, stupid, stupid statement.

Way to backtrack there Farage.

Ok, what the fuck.

Just days ago, he had condemned Boris' similar statement.