Poll
Question:
What will be the size of Theresa May's majority in the Commons
Option 1: 150+ MPs
votes: 0
Option 2: 101-149
votes: 0
Option 3: 81-100
votes: 2
Option 4: 51-80
votes: 4
Option 5: 31-50
votes: 6
Option 6: 16-30
votes: 5
Option 7: 1-15
votes: 2
Option 8: Zero - (Even number of MPs)
votes: 1
Option 9: Minority conservative government
votes: 9
Option 10: Labour and other parties coalition
votes: 2
Option 11: Labour majority government
votes: 3
formerly Your Prediction for the UK General Election Result.
Around 100 hours to go till the likely result of the UK general election becomes apparent, so what are you predictions for the result?
I'll leave the poll open for the next 12-20 hours to give anyone interested a chance to express their opinion, before I lock it for prosperity.
Because of the practical limited to poll choices, the real world probabilities of some events and the possible confusion in political outcomes if labour does astonishingly well, I've left the last three polling options as non-numeric ones.
NB I've also intentionally left off all the possible Conservative coalitions with smaller parties, as it would be too complicated and it's quite likely a conservative minority government could function with the non-formal support of a handful of N.I. unionists, as has happened in the past.
TBR SANCTITY :angry:
Oh.
I thought Labour and the penis shaped Corbyn had closed the gap.
Sell your crazy elsewhere Monger's, we're all stocked up here.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 04, 2017, 07:04:18 PM
I thought Labour and the penis shaped Corbyn had closed the gap.
Nope, Tories are still pushing hard in Northern labour strong seats and are running a formidable social media campaign.
In comparison the opposition parties have been weak, the Lib-dems don't even seem able to run an effective leader's twitter feed. :rolleyes:
I'm predicting a 98 seat Tory majority. <_<
Make England Great Again!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2017, 07:14:43 PM
Make England Great Again!
By making Britain smaller, real small. :D
You guys should nationalize Der Trumpenfuhrer's golf courses.
Rebuild the RN!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2017, 07:18:58 PM
You guys should nationalize Der Trumpenfuhrer's golf courses.
What and guarantee the start of thermonuclear war.
Quote from: mongers on June 04, 2017, 07:27:10 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2017, 07:18:58 PM
You guys should nationalize Der Trumpenfuhrer's golf courses.
What and guarantee the start of thermonuclear war.
Corbyn won't use trident. What a pussy.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 04, 2017, 07:32:33 PM
Quote from: mongers on June 04, 2017, 07:27:10 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2017, 07:18:58 PM
You guys should nationalize Der Trumpenfuhrer's golf courses.
What and guarantee the start of thermonuclear war.
Corbyn won't use trident. What a pussy.
Actually I think a conflict with Trump, would be the only time PM Corbyn would use them. :P
Corbyn doesn't have any good qualities below the hat.
Really uncool to use British politics as a pretext to make innuendos about Brain's health problems. :rolleyes:
I've chosen a tory majority of 31-50.
It could be a lot bigger though. A lot of Corbyn's support comes from younger people who have no experience or memory of the 1970s. Unfortunately, at least for Corbyn, these people vote far less than their elders despite all their "passion" that they spill all over the internet.
I hope they do vote though, if they do then we can thank Corbyn for re-energising things at least.
Any chance the knives will come out in the Conservative party if May doesn't win in a landslide? I guess if she can't win a majority, she's toast. But maybe she will even have problems if she does not improve Cameron's 2015 result?
Quote from: Zanza on June 05, 2017, 12:28:55 AM
Any chance the knives will come out in the Conservative party if May doesn't win in a landslide? I guess if she can't win a majority, she's toast. But maybe she will even have problems if she does not improve Cameron's 2015 result?
The extent of her power will be determined by the size of the majority. I reckon a backstab will occur unless she increases the majority. A thin majority may be the worst result as it puts power into the hands of hardcore brexiters. It is important to remember that a UK PM has no formal powers, they can be unmade in moments if they do not command the confidence of their party.
All very interesting, its just a pity that most of the parties are led by 3rd-raters and their front-benchers are generally even worse..............a massive dearth of political talent.
Nice article here from the Guardian's William Keegan and his hopes for the election :
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/04/hung-parliament-can-halt-brexit-disaster
Any chance you might give Blair another go?
Thread title changed for greater clarity. :bowler:
I predict brexit gets a shocking victory. :ph34r:
My prediction? Pain.
I predict: total disaster.
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2017, 01:49:51 PM
I predict: total disaster.
Don't worry. Corbyn won't win. :console:
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2017, 01:49:51 PM
I predict: total disaster.
To be fair to May for a moment, it'll take her a good couple of years to screw up the Brexit negotiations.
Though saying that, a few more personal liberties and most remaining privacy will be gone by the Friday after next. :bowler:
I'm going for Conservative minority government. May will be caught on a hot mic in the next few days talking about how she hates Muslims and Donald Trump is right about everything.
Tory majority of 50 or so. But that's just the midpoint on a wide range of possible outcomes. The polls are at such variance, depending on what methodology is being used, that nobody really knows what's going on.
May will be caught on a hot mic suggesting that all televisions should come with built-in cameras and mentioning that V for Vendetta is her favorite movie except for the downer ending. Tory majority of 51-80.
I voted 16-30, but I really have no idea and just chose more-or-less at random.
I voted 31-50 as that seems to be the safe middle ground where you can't embarrass yourself with your guess. :P
I voted Labour minority, because that seems like the worst possible outcome, and that's the world we live in now.
Quote from: Barrister on June 06, 2017, 11:53:11 AM
I voted Labour minority, because that seems like the worst possible outcome, and that's the world we live in now.
Labour minority? :huh:
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2017, 12:02:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 06, 2017, 11:53:11 AM
I voted Labour minority, because that seems like the worst possible outcome, and that's the world we live in now.
Labour minority? :huh:
BB wants Scotland to go Tory blue and the rest of the country to follow, he thinks a May landslide will be a beacon of hope.
Reality UK becomes Trump's poodle.
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2017, 12:02:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 06, 2017, 11:53:11 AM
I voted Labour minority, because that seems like the worst possible outcome, and that's the world we live in now.
Labour minority? :huh:
No, a world with the worst possible outcomes.
Well Labour has been a minority for awhile now.
This whole election has been a giant vanity project to boost May's ego; I shall laugh my ass off if she falls short of her current majority.
And the Brexit negotiation clock ticks on, best part of two months wasted.
Quote from: mongers on June 06, 2017, 12:24:39 PM
And the Brexit negotiation clock ticks on, best part of two months wasted.
They are going for "no deal" anyway, so why not waste some time? :bowler:
Quote from: Barrister on June 06, 2017, 12:12:42 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2017, 12:02:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 06, 2017, 11:53:11 AM
I voted Labour minority, because that seems like the worst possible outcome, and that's the world we live in now.
Labour minority? :huh:
No, a world with the worst possible outcomes.
Ah, I get it. Don't agree but get it.
Wouldn't an outright Labour majority be worse for your political convictions, Barrister?
Quote from: Zanza on June 06, 2017, 04:03:28 PM
Wouldn't an outright Labour majority be worse for your political convictions, Barrister?
Nope. Pretty sure Labour supported by SNP would be worse (Lib Dems appear ready to get thrashed). A Labour majority, whatever else it's sins, would at least have a mandate to negotiate Brexit. And whatever you think of Brexit, you at least want a unified voice trying to negotiate it.
Theresa May has said she will change human rights laws if they "get in the way" of tackling suspected terrorists.
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2017-40181444
At least she is honest.
Quote from: Zanza on June 06, 2017, 05:03:54 PM
Theresa May has said she will change human rights laws if they "get in the way" of tackling suspected terrorists.
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2017-40181444
At least she is honest.
If this continued for another week and polls kept going down for her I'd expect a full V for Vendetta turn by next monday.
Quote from: The Larch on June 06, 2017, 05:07:24 PM
Quote from: Zanza on June 06, 2017, 05:03:54 PM
Theresa May has said she will change human rights laws if they "get in the way" of tackling suspected terrorists.
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2017-40181444
At least she is honest.
If this continued for another week and polls kept going down for her I'd expect a full V for Vendetta turn by next monday.
Strong and stable through purity! Purity through faith!
Quote from: celedhring on June 06, 2017, 05:56:24 PM
Quote from: The Larch on June 06, 2017, 05:07:24 PM
Quote from: Zanza on June 06, 2017, 05:03:54 PM
Theresa May has said she will change human rights laws if they "get in the way" of tackling suspected terrorists.
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2017-40181444
At least she is honest.
If this continued for another week and polls kept going down for her I'd expect a full V for Vendetta turn by next monday.
Strong and stable through purity! Purity through faith!
England prevails! Brexit means Brexit!
Okay, this is pretty funny (if ultimately meaningless):
Tory 'strong and stable' advertising van overturns in the wind
(https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_large/public/thumbnails/image/2017/06/06/19/thelwall.jpg)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/election-tory-strong-stable-van-overturns-conservatives-theresa-may-advert-a7776136.html?cmpid=facebook-post
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2017, 06:10:09 PM
Okay, this is pretty funny (if ultimately meaningless):
Tory 'strong and stable' advertising van overturns in the wind
Yes we've known that for four weeks, though the van overturning is quite important. :bowler:
I was optimistic before alas there's just too many stupid people in the UK and the media has really pushed the London Bridge thing hard.
On the flipside, liberal outlets (like the Guardian), seem no longer interested in Corbyn bashing. All knives are directed at the Conservatives.
Quote from: garbon on June 07, 2017, 02:39:07 AM
On the flipside, liberal outlets (like the Guardian), seem no longer interested in Corbyn bashing. All knives are directed at the Conservatives.
The last time the UK tried to build Corbyn's dream society ended up with power failures and other success stories. He would be a disaster.
I'm no defender of Corbyn. -_-
Quote from: mongers on June 06, 2017, 06:44:08 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2017, 06:10:09 PM
Okay, this is pretty funny (if ultimately meaningless):
Tory 'strong and stable' advertising van overturns in the wind
Yes we've known that for four weeks, though the van overturning is quite important. :bowler:
White van man? :hmm:
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 07, 2017, 06:09:09 AM
Quote from: mongers on June 06, 2017, 06:44:08 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2017, 06:10:09 PM
Okay, this is pretty funny (if ultimately meaningless):
Tory 'strong and stable' advertising van overturns in the wind
Yes we've known that for four weeks, though the van overturning is quite important. :bowler:
White van man? :hmm:
Ludwig.
Quote from: Tamas on June 07, 2017, 05:07:08 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 07, 2017, 02:39:07 AM
On the flipside, liberal outlets (like the Guardian), seem no longer interested in Corbyn bashing. All knives are directed at the Conservatives.
The last time the UK tried to build Corbyn's dream society ended up with power failures and other success stories. He would be a disaster.
When was this Tamas?
Would point out:
a) That the last government Corbyn would have approved of would be the 1945-51 Labour Govt under Attlee (and then only on domestic policy)
b) The power failures I think you are referring too, occurred under a Tory Government in 73/74 along with the 3 day week
c) You may also be thinking of the Winter of Discontent when there were lots of strikes (but the power stayed on IIRC). This was under a Labour Government but one run by moderates against whom Corbyn would have campaigned aggressively.
That's not to say Corbyn wouldn't be an unmitigated disaster.
Quote from: Gups on June 07, 2017, 07:16:34 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 07, 2017, 05:07:08 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 07, 2017, 02:39:07 AM
On the flipside, liberal outlets (like the Guardian), seem no longer interested in Corbyn bashing. All knives are directed at the Conservatives.
The last time the UK tried to build Corbyn's dream society ended up with power failures and other success stories. He would be a disaster.
When was this Tamas?
Would point out:
a) That the last government Corbyn would have approved of would be the 1945-51 Labour Govt under Attlee (and then only on domestic policy)
b) The power failures I think you are referring too, occurred under a Tory Government in 73/74 along with the 3 day week
c) You may also be thinking of the Winter of Discontent when there were lots of strikes (but the power stayed on IIRC). This was under a Labour Government but one run by moderates against whom Corbyn would have campaigned aggressively.
That's not to say Corbyn wouldn't be an unmitigated disaster.
Shush now, don't you try dismantling the foundations myths of thatcherism.
People born during its era have swallowed them hook, line and sinker.
Pretty sure Thatcher saved Britain as it was about to collapse into a socialist wasteland after 10 seconds more of pinko Labour rule and communist union bosses stealing all the public's money for their fat cat coal miners.
I used to quite dislike Corbyn.
Then labour actually announced their manifesto.
Brexit is bad but otherwise nothing you wouldn't see elsewhere in Europe. Pretty sensible all round.
I have obtained my summary of british politics from the Tory mouthpiece that is The Economist
Quote from: Tamas on June 07, 2017, 08:56:28 AM
I have obtained my summary of british politics from the Tory mouthpiece that is The Economist
The Economist :wub:
Quote from: Valmy on June 07, 2017, 08:57:17 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 07, 2017, 08:56:28 AM
I have obtained my summary of british politics from the Tory mouthpiece that is The Economist
The Economist :wub:
You cultists are weird.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on June 07, 2017, 09:46:32 AM
You cultists are weird.
There is nothing weird about waiting for Great Leader's weekly words of wisdom.
Quote from: Tamas on June 07, 2017, 08:56:28 AM
I have obtained my summary of british politics from the Tory mouthpiece that is The Economist
They're...just anti brexit right?
So stands to reason they'd be against labour just as they're against the tories
They endorsed the LibDems
So we have this thread for predicting the result and the other longer one about the General election campaign, so would it be a good idea to close one of them to avoid the outcome discussion being split?
If so which one?
Quote from: mongers on June 07, 2017, 05:19:40 PM
So we have this thread for predicting the result and the other longer one about the General election campaign, so would it be a good idea to close one of them to avoid the outcome discussion being split?
If so which one?
Quit fussing around like a granny.
So is May's describing human rights laws as an inconvenience to be gotten around going to screw with things, or are the Brexit voters now that jaded?
Quote from: mongers on June 07, 2017, 08:06:19 AM
People born during its era have swallowed them hook, line and sinker.
Well, Tamas was born in commie land. I can appreciate his aversion to Labour.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 07, 2017, 06:12:57 PM
Quote from: mongers on June 07, 2017, 08:06:19 AM
People born during its era have swallowed them hook, line and sinker.
Well, Tamas was born in commie land. I can appreciate his aversion to Labour.
And it was Labour foreign secretary who moved to keep the US engaged in post-WW2 Europe and was one of the chief architects of NATO. IE standing up to Stalinism.
Just because the Tories bang on about national security and rapping themselves in the Union Jack, doesn't mean the Labour party of the last 60 years has anything to be embarrassed about. After all it's said patriotism is often the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 07, 2017, 05:59:32 PM
Quote from: mongers on June 07, 2017, 05:19:40 PM
So we have this thread for predicting the result and the other longer one about the General election campaign, so would it be a good idea to close one of them to avoid the outcome discussion being split?
If so which one?
Quit fussing around like a granny.
OK I'll act like a Trumpian dictator and decide which one to close, whilst I sit on the sitter in the morning. :P
Final polls (one more to come this morning)
ICM: CON 46%(+1), LAB 34%(nc), LDEM 7%(-1), UKIP 5%(nc),
ComRes: CON 44%(-3), LAB 34%(-1), LDEM 9%(+1), UKIP 5%(+1).
Surveymonkey: CON 42%(-2), LAB 38%(nc), LDEM 6%(nc), UKIP 4%(nc).
Panelbase: CON 44%(nc), LAB 36%(nc), LDEM 7%(nc), UKIP 5%(nc), GRN 2%(-1).
Kantar: CON 43%(nc), LAB 38%(+5), LDEM 7%(-4), UKIP 4%(nc).
YouGov: CON 42%, LAB 35%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 5%, GRN 2%.
Survation: CON 41%, LAB 40%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 2%, GRN 2%
BMG: CON 46%, LAB 33%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 5%.
So Tories in a range of 41 to 46 and Labour 33 to 40. As I understand it the primary difference is in estimating the turnout by demographic sector. Those polls giving the higher labour shares are asking people how likely they are to vote. Those giving the lower shares are adjusting on the basis of previous elections and referenda. So the big unknown is whether young people (in particular) can be believed when they say they will vote. If so Labour could be in the high 30s. If they follow the pattern of 2015 and the EU referendum, then low to mid 30s.
Pretty shit weather here. I have a feeling that the young folk, aka "Jezza's People", will have a lowish turnout..........thus gifting the election to the tories. Horrible screams will be heard from their bubble as they fail to understand that actually casting a vote is far more important than virtue signalling on social media.
I hope I'm wrong, even though I don't want Corbyn to do well.
This is the last election before the tory gerrymandering takes hold too. Some pretty stupid changes here:
http://boundaries.spatialanalysis.co.uk/2018/#/TFFTT/9/-1.9803/55.3533/
Fuhrer May's coronation it seems :(
Quote from: Tyr on June 08, 2017, 02:53:55 AM
This is the last election before the tory gerrymandering takes hold too. Some pretty stupid changes here:
http://boundaries.spatialanalysis.co.uk/2018/#/TFFTT/9/-1.9803/55.3533/
Fuhrer May's coronation it seems :(
It's not gerrymandering. We have boundary changes every 10 years decided on by an independent body whose decisions can (and often are) challenged judicially.
Your ignorance of how our constitution works is genuinely depressing. I can't be bothered to respond to most of them (e.g. the idea that the Tories can use civil servants to cost their manifesto plans or that MPs have to live in their constituencies) but I think this one is worth responding to.
Quote from: Gups on June 08, 2017, 03:17:34 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 08, 2017, 02:53:55 AM
This is the last election before the tory gerrymandering takes hold too. Some pretty stupid changes here:
http://boundaries.spatialanalysis.co.uk/2018/#/TFFTT/9/-1.9803/55.3533/
Fuhrer May's coronation it seems :(
It's not gerrymandering. We have boundary changes every 10 years decided on by an independent body whose decisions can (and often are) challenged judicially.
Your ignorance of how our constitution works is genuinely depressing. I can't be bothered to respond to most of them (e.g. the idea that the Tories can use civil servants to cost their manifesto plans or that MPs have to live in their constituencies) but I think this one is worth responding to.
That the civil service do the leg work for the government is a fact.
That MPs have to live in their constituencies was a rhetorical question. It's not exactly an important issue and it was a surprise to me that they would be running a Martian in a Earthling village as its the first time I've seen it and though it is obviously legal it is pretty bad.
Boundary reviews happen regularly. This one is however something quite different with the reduction in MP numbers and basing seat distribution not on inhabitants but on registered voters as of a point some years ago when several hundred thousand were removed from the electoral roll (I'm pretty sure I wasn't taken into account with this boundary review for instance). I'm not saying anything new here. The changes have came in for a lot of criticism.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/labour-hit-hardest-boundary-changes-claims-of-gerrymandering_uk_57c3ea19e4b0ba22a4d48f47
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 08, 2017, 02:51:17 AM
Pretty shit weather here. I have a feeling that the young folk, aka "Jezza's People", will have a lowish turnout..........thus gifting the election to the tories. Horrible screams will be heard from their bubble as they fail to understand that actually casting a vote is far more important than virtue signalling on social media.
I hope I'm wrong, even though I don't want Corbyn to do well.
Guardian referenced this old article of there's this morning
Quotehttps://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/may/03/weather-local-elections-2012
There will also very likely be rain. Conventional punditry would tell you that means lower turnout and bad news for Labour because young people are more prone to dissolving. But a Guardian fact-check for the 2012 local elections found that to be a myth (the rain = low turnout line; further studies are needed on young people's solubility).
It's in days like today that you can count on the British tabloid press to do their worst. Aaah, so subtle and nuanced...
(https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18953009_10154377655722827_1842403625081228527_n.jpg?oh=596fb990309bff654f35908091a539b7&oe=59DD509A)
Quote from: Tyr on June 08, 2017, 03:43:49 AM
Quote from: Gups on June 08, 2017, 03:17:34 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 08, 2017, 02:53:55 AM
This is the last election before the tory gerrymandering takes hold too. Some pretty stupid changes here:
http://boundaries.spatialanalysis.co.uk/2018/#/TFFTT/9/-1.9803/55.3533/
Fuhrer May's coronation it seems :(
It's not gerrymandering. We have boundary changes every 10 years decided on by an independent body whose decisions can (and often are) challenged judicially.
Your ignorance of how our constitution works is genuinely depressing. I can't be bothered to respond to most of them (e.g. the idea that the Tories can use civil servants to cost their manifesto plans or that MPs have to live in their constituencies) but I think this one is worth responding to.
That the civil service do the leg work for the government is a fact.
That MPs have to live in their constituencies was a rhetorical question. It's not exactly and important issue and it was a surprise to me that they would be running a Martian in a Earthling village as its the first time I've seen it and though it is obviously legal it is pretty bad.
Boundary reviews happen regularly. This one is however something quite different with the reduction in MP numbers and basing seat distribution not on inhabitants but on registered voters as of a point some years ago when several hundred thousand were removed from the electoral roll (I'm pretty sure I wasn't taken into account with this boundary review for instance). I'm not saying anything new here. The changes have came in for a lot of criticism.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/labour-hit-hardest-boundary-changes-claims-of-gerrymandering_uk_57c3ea19e4b0ba22a4d48f47
A manifesto is not a Government document. Civil servants are not allowed to work on party documents whether that party is in Government or not.
I think you need to find out what gerrymandering is.
Quote from: mongers on June 07, 2017, 06:29:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 07, 2017, 06:12:57 PM
Quote from: mongers on June 07, 2017, 08:06:19 AM
People born during its era have swallowed them hook, line and sinker.
Well, Tamas was born in commie land. I can appreciate his aversion to Labour.
And it was Labour foreign secretary who moved to keep the US engaged in post-WW2 Europe and was one of the chief architects of NATO. IE standing up to Stalinism.
Just because the Tories bang on about national security and rapping themselves in the Union Jack, doesn't mean the Labour party of the last 60 years has anything to be embarrassed about. After all it's said patriotism is often the last refuge of a scoundrel.
That I guess is true for Labour in general but we are not exactly facing a return of Tony Blair now are we? Corbyn IS a one man collection of pretty much everything that's wrong with the far left. Sure, by accident he would bring in some good as well but not nearly enough to compensate for the disaster.
Just thinking Chavez did well in Venezuela should disqualify you from holding any office.
Quote from: Gups on June 08, 2017, 05:04:42 AM
A manifesto is not a Government document. Civil servants are not allowed to work on party documents whether that party is in Government or not.
I think you need to find out what gerrymandering is.
That's not how things work in practice though. The Tories were in government. Their daily work was running the country.
If they had a policy idea after the dissolution then the civil service would not help them.
If they had an idea prior to the election though then the civil service would help as part of their normal work. I'm not aware of any rule that says the manifesto for the current government cannot be based off continuing in the manner they had planned.
I suspect you might be thinking I'm seeing some sort of evil conspiracy here, its nothing of the sort, its just logical. It does however have the effect of giving the party currently in government an advantage when it comes to having a well rounded manifesto (not that the tories have used this advantage).
The boundary changes do tick the boxes for gerrymandering.
Quote from: Gups on June 08, 2017, 05:04:42 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 08, 2017, 03:43:49 AM
Quote from: Gups on June 08, 2017, 03:17:34 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 08, 2017, 02:53:55 AM
This is the last election before the tory gerrymandering takes hold too. Some pretty stupid changes here:
http://boundaries.spatialanalysis.co.uk/2018/#/TFFTT/9/-1.9803/55.3533/
Fuhrer May's coronation it seems :(
It's not gerrymandering. We have boundary changes every 10 years decided on by an independent body whose decisions can (and often are) challenged judicially.
Your ignorance of how our constitution works is genuinely depressing. I can't be bothered to respond to most of them (e.g. the idea that the Tories can use civil servants to cost their manifesto plans or that MPs have to live in their constituencies) but I think this one is worth responding to.
That the civil service do the leg work for the government is a fact.
That MPs have to live in their constituencies was a rhetorical question. It's not exactly and important issue and it was a surprise to me that they would be running a Martian in a Earthling village as its the first time I've seen it and though it is obviously legal it is pretty bad.
Boundary reviews happen regularly. This one is however something quite different with the reduction in MP numbers and basing seat distribution not on inhabitants but on registered voters as of a point some years ago when several hundred thousand were removed from the electoral roll (I'm pretty sure I wasn't taken into account with this boundary review for instance). I'm not saying anything new here. The changes have came in for a lot of criticism.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/labour-hit-hardest-boundary-changes-claims-of-gerrymandering_uk_57c3ea19e4b0ba22a4d48f47
A manifesto is not a Government document. Civil servants are not allowed to work on party documents whether that party is in Government or not.
I think you need to find out what gerrymandering is.
I'm surprised that you're bothering to try to educate him, Gups; there's a reason why Tyr's one of only two posters on Languish I'd be unwilling to have a beer with (on the grounds that I might not be able to restrain myself from punching either of them.)
-------------------
As for voting, I've been out and voted, and dropped off a family member's postal vote. Anecdotal evidence only of course, but from the number of people I saw at the polling station I feel the turnout is going to be down from the last election - and given the time of the day I voted this may be bad for the Tories.
-------------------
I was contemplating on the way back that the difference in voting turnout may not just be a reflection of age, political awareness or activism etc. but also a result of our system and the ways we've been pushing to make it easier to vote.
Both voting on a Thursday and pushing postal votes would seem to me to have the effect of making it more likely/easier for the elderly to vote, rather than the working young. Even given that you can basically get a postal vote just for the sake of it these days rather than actually having to have a reason for needing one.
I live in what still amounts to a commuter town, after all, and the voters I did see were either OAPs or mothers (and I know my Butcher, who I visited after the vote,
may be going to vote later, but that his wife had already gone down to vote.)
In other words the elderly vote more because both the motivated and the unmotivated have more opportunity/it is easier to do so.
I fully expect to have the 3rd voting-related half-awake shocked disbelief in a course of a year, when I'll check the results tomorrow morning
Quote from: Agelastus on June 08, 2017, 05:32:46 AM
I'm surprised that you're bothering to try to educate him, Gups; there's a reason why Tyr's one of only two posters on Languish I'd be unwilling to have a beer with (on the grounds that I might not be able to restrain myself from punching either of them.)
Just don't bring up anime and I won't be obliged to say how shitty it is, shouldn't be *that* difficult. Geeze.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on June 08, 2017, 08:07:15 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on June 08, 2017, 05:32:46 AM
I'm surprised that you're bothering to try to educate him, Gups; there's a reason why Tyr's one of only two posters on Languish I'd be unwilling to have a beer with (on the grounds that I might not be able to restrain myself from punching either of them.)
Just don't bring up anime and I won't be obliged to say how shitty it is, shouldn't be *that* difficult. Geeze.
:P
Eddie, I'd be happy to have a beer with you if we ever came within a few miles of each other; no mention of anime guaranteed, I promise.
Quote from: Agelastus on June 08, 2017, 08:18:39 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on June 08, 2017, 08:07:15 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on June 08, 2017, 05:32:46 AM
I'm surprised that you're bothering to try to educate him, Gups; there's a reason why Tyr's one of only two posters on Languish I'd be unwilling to have a beer with (on the grounds that I might not be able to restrain myself from punching either of them.)
Just don't bring up anime and I won't be obliged to say how shitty it is, shouldn't be *that* difficult. Geeze.
:P
Eddie, I'd be happy to have a beer with you if we ever came within a few miles of each other; no mention of anime guaranteed, I promise.
Yeah Eddie he was talking about me not you. :cool:
Why are you both excited about who Mensa Timmay is picking as his main squeeze?
I'm only as excited as you are garbon.
Quote from: garbon on June 08, 2017, 08:43:43 AM
Why are you both excited about who Mensa Timmay is picking as his main squeeze?
:P
"Anime Timmay" presumably, rather than "thread-starter Timmay" or "Article-poster Timmay"?
How many poll tracking websites do you have bookmarked?
All of them! :w00t:
Quote from: Tyr on June 08, 2017, 03:43:49 AM
Quote from: Gups on June 08, 2017, 03:17:34 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 08, 2017, 02:53:55 AM
This is the last election before the tory gerrymandering takes hold too. Some pretty stupid changes here:
http://boundaries.spatialanalysis.co.uk/2018/#/TFFTT/9/-1.9803/55.3533/
Fuhrer May's coronation it seems :(
It's not gerrymandering. We have boundary changes every 10 years decided on by an independent body whose decisions can (and often are) challenged judicially.
Your ignorance of how our constitution works is genuinely depressing. I can't be bothered to respond to most of them (e.g. the idea that the Tories can use civil servants to cost their manifesto plans or that MPs have to live in their constituencies) but I think this one is worth responding to.
That the civil service do the leg work for the government is a fact.
That MPs have to live in their constituencies was a rhetorical question. It's not exactly an important issue and it was a surprise to me that they would be running a Martian in a Earthling village as its the first time I've seen it and though it is obviously legal it is pretty bad.
Boundary reviews happen regularly. This one is however something quite different with the reduction in MP numbers and basing seat distribution not on inhabitants but on registered voters as of a point some years ago when several hundred thousand were removed from the electoral roll (I'm pretty sure I wasn't taken into account with this boundary review for instance). I'm not saying anything new here. The changes have came in for a lot of criticism.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/labour-hit-hardest-boundary-changes-claims-of-gerrymandering_uk_57c3ea19e4b0ba22a4d48f47
From your own article:
Quote"The party that will suffer most is the Labour party because such a high proportion of their current seats are well below the required quota, particularly in Wales, the north-east and parts of the M62 corridor," Lord Hayward told The Guardian.
Labour may be affected by redistribution. That doesn't make it gerrymandering or unfair.
This is gerrymandering :
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/15/americas-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts/?utm_term=.f28096199f8f
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 08, 2017, 09:47:16 AM
This is gerrymandering :
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/15/americas-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts/?utm_term=.f28096199f8f
That's probably the next level of gerrymandering: "abortion of democracy"
Labour is being disproportionately affected because traditional labour supporters, the poor and students, were disproportionately affected by the change to electoral registration rules.
I'm well aware it's not the same thing as American style gerrymandering. But again I'm not just randomly deciding to use the term here. A lot of people have used it to draw attention to the dodginess of the boundary review.
Quote from: Agelastus on June 08, 2017, 05:32:46 AM
I'm surprised that you're bothering to try to educate him, Gups; there's a reason why Tyr's one of only two posters on Languish I'd be unwilling to have a beer with (on the grounds that I might not be able to restrain myself from punching either of them.)
Ah the hard right.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 08, 2017, 11:55:00 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 08, 2017, 09:47:16 AM
This is gerrymandering :
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/15/americas-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts/?utm_term=.f28096199f8f
That's probably the next level of gerrymandering: "abortion of democracy"
One of Austin's districts is on that list! Glad to be recognized. We are so badly chopped up into different districts that everytime I have moved, within the same area of the same city mind you, I have moved into a different Congressional district.
Quote from: Tyr on June 08, 2017, 11:56:20 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on June 08, 2017, 05:32:46 AM
I'm surprised that you're bothering to try to educate him, Gups; there's a reason why Tyr's one of only two posters on Languish I'd be unwilling to have a beer with (on the grounds that I might not be able to restrain myself from punching either of them.)
Ah the hard right.
:lol:
And the reason it's only a "might" on the punch; like many on Languish, you have far more skill with the witty one liner response than I do.
Will we get exit polls or will it take until late in the night to get an idea who won?
The Exit Poll should be out by 10:30 or so, if I recall correctly.
--------------------------
The current article thread on UK Polling Report is, of course, busy - and is also providing several bits of anecdotal evidence that -
(a) I'm wrong about the turnout - there are polling stations running 5% ahead of this time in 2015.
(b) That the "youth/young person" vote is turning out.
(c) That former Labour voters in high UKIP areas are breaking back to Labour, contrary to the evidence of the early polls during the campaign and the anecdotal evidence around then.
Of course, anecdotal "evidence" is not real evidence. But it could mean that the lower Tory poll leads in the last week are more accurate than the higher ones as so much of the difference was down to how they were modelling turnout.
OK can we stop voting now, I note 26 have proffered an opinion and someone else has posted in the 80-100, but no one over 100+.
So safe to say I'm the extreme outlier having gone for a 98 seat Tory majority. :hmm:
I think part of my 'reasoning' is I'm a pessimist and a May landslide would be the worse outcome for the country.
But I also think the campaign on the ground has been limited and lacklustre, much of the cut and thrust, especially among the young has moved on line. Where I think the Tory e-campaign will far overshadow the efforts of Labour and Lib Dems.
I suspect a lot of experience will have been drawn from Trump's tightly focused campaign and there'll have been a fair bit of flow across the Atlantic, both in terms of methodologies, intelligence and grey money to push the Tories on-line.
Plus the pensioners and 50+ groups will turn out in droves for May, of whom the 'Strong and Stable' bullshit will have registered despite the naysayers.
No idea of the electoral map or particular numbers, but my wild guesses are as follows:
Tories gain 6-12 seats in Scotland.
Labour won't do so well as Tories, gaining maybe up to 10 seats.
SNP tacking during the election will ensure they'll loose 20 at most.
Labour are bound to loose plenty of seats in the Midlands and North as the Tories mop up UKIP voters.
Lib Dems gain no more than a dozen seats.
So overall:
Labour just below 200 seats say 198, worse than Michael Foot's 83 result.
SNP - 40 seats
Lib-Dems - 18 seats
Greens - 2 seats
Others - 22 seats
Thus the Tories get 378 seats. <_<
Quote from: mongers on June 08, 2017, 12:42:26 PM
Tories gain 6-12 seats in Scotland.
Labour won't do so well as Tories, gaining maybe up to 10 seats.
SNP tacking during the election will ensure they'll loose 20 at most.
You realise your Scottish estimates are at roughly twice the level of any "best case for the Unionist parties" estimates that I've seen suggested?
I'd say the SNP will be unlucky to lose 10; 8 is a more reasonable estimate and only losing four to six more than possible.
Quote from: Agelastus on June 08, 2017, 12:42:20 PM
The Exit Poll should be out by 10:30 or so, if I recall correctly.
--------------------------
The current article thread on UK Polling Report is, of course, busy - and is also providing several bits of anecdotal evidence that -
(a) I'm wrong about the turnout - there are polling stations running 5% ahead of this time in 2015.
(b) That the "youth/young person" vote is turning out.
(c) That former Labour voters in high UKIP areas are breaking back to Labour, contrary to the evidence of the early polls during the campaign and the anecdotal evidence around then.
Of course, anecdotal "evidence" is not real evidence. But it could mean that the lower Tory poll leads in the last week are more accurate than the higher ones as so much of the difference was down to how they were modelling turnout.
It's always at 10 p.m.
Quote from: Gups on June 08, 2017, 12:45:37 PM
It's always at 10 p.m.
Yes, you're right. I just looked it up; should have done that before posting, I was relying on my faulty memory of 2015 for the time.
Quote from: Agelastus on June 08, 2017, 12:45:18 PM
Quote from: mongers on June 08, 2017, 12:42:26 PM
Tories gain 6-12 seats in Scotland.
Labour won't do so well as Tories, gaining maybe up to 10 seats.
SNP tacking during the election will ensure they'll loose 20 at most.
You realise your Scottish estimates are at roughly twice the level of any "best case for the Unionist parties" estimates that I've seen suggested?
I'd say the SNP will be unlucky to lose 10; 8 is a more reasonable estimate and only losing four to six more than possible.
Well I was just going with my gut instinct, largely based on conversations whilst out and about.
For me there's little point following the online numbers game, there are plenty of psephologists who do it better than me.
And they and other talking heads are going to dominate this evenings coverage with plenty of facts and figures, just as they did during the referendum. ;)
I would see the Tories getting a few in Scotland. And I'm actually quite happy about that, don't like the SNP one party state they've got up there. At the least will stop them getting all smug about how they never voted for the government (should the Tories win overall) but 'England' did.
Fingers crossed on some progressive wins in England though.
Certainly on facebook I've seen a few thoroughly apolitical people getting quite excited about Corbyn...
But at the same time a few thoroughly non-working class would be Kippers getting very gung-ho for the tories- my town newspaper carried a big headline about how we should vote for May for the sake of Brexit <_<
I fear Corbyn's votes are going to stack in a few seats.
Worst case that I fear we'll see...a lack of awareness pushes many to vote lib dem in Tory-Labour marginals.
I'm in a safe Labour seat with a moderate local MP. But I hate Corbyn. I was sure I was voting LibDem until this morning. Throughout the day I changed my mind more often than a child molester at Disneyland. Voted Labour in the end but threw up in my mouth a little.
Please can we have Macron?
Quote from: Gups on June 08, 2017, 02:05:07 PM
I'm in a safe Labour seat with a moderate local MP. But I hate Corbyn. I was sure I was voting LibDem until this morning. Throughout the day I changed my mind more often than a child molester at Disneyland. Voted Labour in the end but threw up in my mouth a little.
Please can we have Macron?
You can start by not re-electing May after the bullshit she said about human rights laws the other day.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 08, 2017, 02:18:34 PM
Quote from: Gups on June 08, 2017, 02:05:07 PM
I'm in a safe Labour seat with a moderate local MP. But I hate Corbyn. I was sure I was voting LibDem until this morning. Throughout the day I changed my mind more often than a child molester at Disneyland. Voted Labour in the end but threw up in my mouth a little.
Please can we have Macron?
You can start by not re-electing May after the bullshit she said about human rights laws the other day.
I guess this kind of outrage is what happens when the world starts paying attention? May has consistently* said that she wants to throw out European convention of human rights, so what she said is not at all surprising.
*except for when she said she didn't :D
"Eve-of-vote poll by ComRes for The Independent gives Ms May a 10-point lead, indicating an 74-seat majority"
If true what do I win by having guessed 51-80? :P
The final day polls varied between a 1 point and a 13 point Tory lead (although I may have missed some.)
It will be very interesting to see how the Exit Poll turns out; will I need to break out my cheapest booze to get roaring drunk (well, tipsy anyway) or open the bottle of fifty year old Cognac I let myself be tempted by a couple of weeks ago to celebrate?
Quote from: Agelastus on June 08, 2017, 03:47:31 PM
The final day polls varied between a 1 point and a 13 point Tory lead (although I may have missed some.)
It will be very interesting to see how the Exit Poll turns out; will I need to break out my cheapest booze to get roaring drunk (well, tipsy anyway) or open the bottle of fifty year old Cognac I let myself be tempted by a couple of weeks ago to celebrate?
Hey Agelastus, IIRC you were pro-Brexit during the referendum. What do you think about how the post-referendum Brexit scenario has played out so far? Has your expectations for the post-Brexit world changed since the referendum time?
Not looking for an argument here, just curious about your perception.
Channel 4 just announced exit poll for a hung parliament :w00t:
Really not believing it but...its encouraging given the polls throughout the day have been so for May.
If the results are what they say, Tories on 314.... the Northern Irish unionists are needed to make the government?
Promising for Brexit if so.
Exit poll...pretty fucking dire, really.
Tories 314, Labour 266, SNP 34, LD 14
Hung parliament.
And if the poll's right it's a good job I didn't tell Mongers I'd "eat my hat" when I saw his Scottish prediction.
Time to break out the cheaper booze.
Quote from: Tyr on June 08, 2017, 04:01:42 PM
Channel 4 just announced exit poll for a hung parliament :w00t:
Exit poll is 12 from a majority? How was it the last exit poll went? :P
That's it for May then?
If this ends up being the result, will May resign? It would be an incredible slap in her face
.....and then PM Boris? :lol:
This isn't good:
http://www.nme.com/news/students-turned-away-polling-stations-keele-university-2086047
Quote from: Maladict on June 08, 2017, 04:06:46 PM
That's it for May then?
Honestly? If it's a hung parliament then the knives will be out in the Tory party and I'd guess yes - even a repeat of 2015 (where the exit poll called the Tories low) leading too a similar Tory majority as 2015 will probably cause "man overboard" in the Tory party.
For the last few elections the Exit poll has never been more than 20 seats wrong for a party - considering that, even if 2015 is repeated that's a Tory total of no more than 334.
If the exit poll is right, I'd also predict another election within 2 years, possibly within the year. Which screws the Brexit negotiations over royally.
Quote from: Tyr on June 08, 2017, 04:08:43 PM
.....and then PM Boris? :lol:
Might as well run this whole thing to the ground and star over from scratch asap
Quote from: Liep on June 08, 2017, 04:03:24 PM
Quote from: Tyr on June 08, 2017, 04:01:42 PM
Channel 4 just announced exit poll for a hung parliament :w00t:
Exit poll is 12 from a majority? How was it the last exit poll went? :P
I looked it up - the 2015 exit poll called it as 316 for the Tories - so May's already doing worse there.
But how many points are missing from a majority based on this? 12? Can't they just buy 12 guys from the others category?
Quote from: Tamas on June 08, 2017, 04:14:16 PM
But how many points are missing from a majority based on this? 12? Can't they just buy 12 guys from the others category?
They're pretty chummy with the DUP in Northern Ireland who have 8 at the moment. The Ulster Unionists have 2....... 18 available overall in Northern Ireland so...it's a big ask for them to be pushed over the majority line. I don't see UKIP getting anything.
Quote from: Tamas on June 08, 2017, 04:14:16 PM
But how many points are missing from a majority based on this? 12? Can't they just buy 12 guys from the others category?
It actually is a couple of seats less than that since Sinn Fein MPs decline to actually represent their constituents. But even with that there's not enough Unionists in the "Others" category if they stay on 314.
Well I don't buy that exit poll, I think some Tory voters now routinely lie to pollsters, I suspect conservatives have done 3-4% better than the poll suggests.
I bet the Northern Irish are feeling a bit smug right now as the entire country frantically googles about Northern Irish politics.
Quote from: Tamas on June 08, 2017, 04:07:48 PM
If this ends up being the result, will May resign? It would be an incredible slap in her face
I dunno; worse things happen in other countries, like having more overall votes and still losing.
I have a pretty dim view of British polling so I'll wait a few hours.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 08, 2017, 04:26:29 PM
I have a pretty dim view of British polling so I'll wait a few hours.
As noted, the Exit poll hasn't been out by more than 20 seats for any one party for the last several elections (at least back to 2001.)
The only real way this poll could be out is if they've picked the wrong polling stations/constituencies to work from; I actually don't think this is very likely.
David Cameron may have been a disaster as an actual leader, but he was a tremendous politician. May; not as much. Also, I've always thought the UK leans left, and the presence of a bunch of minor parties makes it hard to get a majority. They have also been in power for perhaps too long. Corbyn can only help them so much.
Newcastle Central is first to declare.
2015 Labour won with 55%, 2017 they've won with 65%....promising.
Sunderland Central, a Brexit voting area, have also declared with +9% for Labour.
These are Labour safe areas so not representative but....hmm...
QuoteDavid Cameron may have been a disaster as an actual leader, but he was a tremendous politician. May; not as much. Also, I've always thought the UK leans left, and the presence of a bunch of minor parties makes it hard to get a majority. They have also been in power for perhaps too long. Corbyn can only help them so much.
:yes:
It's the problem with the British system, the left wing vote is very split whilst the Tories pretty much own the right, especially now UKIP are gone.
Quote from: Tyr on June 08, 2017, 05:22:45 PM
Newcastle Central is first to declare.
2015 Labour won with 55%, 2017 they've won with 65%....promising.
Exit poll suggested this should have been 74%.
QuoteSunderland Central, a Brexit voting area, have also declared with +9% for Labour.
Can't find this declaration anywhere - Houghton and Sunderland has declared, allegedly with a 3.5% swing Labour to Tory (which in this case is a nonsense figure because the Tories weren't in second place last time.)
Where's the Sunderland Central Declaration available?
I was looking on Wikipedia, had heard one sunderland had declared and didn't know which. Guess it was vandalism
Quote from: Tyr on June 08, 2017, 05:38:37 PM
I was looking on Wikipedia, had heard one sunderland had declared and didn't know which. Guess it was vandalism
Sunderland Central now declared; Labour up 5000 roughly, Tories up 6000 - and UKIP only down 5000.
2.3% swing Labour to Conservative - again a fairly meaningless measure.
Seems to be what was expected, the Kippers going over to the Tories. Wonder if anyone has done a calculation based on combining the UKIP and Tory vote.
Pretty good increase in turnout overall.
I remain worried but hopeful
You guys should just use mass conscription like us and get done with the recount quickish. We'd be getting final results in Spain already. I want to go to bed :P
Well, Tyr, from your "worried but hopeful" perspective it appears you may have some good news - so far the results have been following YouGov's NowCast very closely - and their prediction was 302 seats for the Tories.
https://yougov.co.uk/uk-general-election-2017/
Labour did very well in Swindon. Really gave the Tories a run for their money.
I should sleep. Last night I couldn't sleep so I need it. I have work tomorrow. But channel 4s coverage is fun. They keep mocking the whole idea of this coverage and the uselessness of polls.
Quote from: mongers on June 08, 2017, 12:42:26 PM
OK can we stop voting now, I note 26 have proffered an opinion and someone else has posted in the 80-100, but no one over 100+.
So safe to say I'm the extreme outlier having gone for a 98 seat Tory majority. :hmm:
That was me. I just looked at a couple of recent polls and went with them. Looking at the exit polls today, that seems to have been a mistake.
I'm off work tomorrow (assuming my boss doesn't call, he's done it every day so far this week that I've been off work <_<.)
Word on the ground seems to be that the Tories have lost Kensington (or Chelsea or both - the person posting "the word" seems to be mixing the modern constituencies up with the one abolished before the 2010 election.)
Even given London being the heartland of remain, that's still pretty shocking.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 08, 2017, 06:15:57 PM
Quote from: mongers on June 08, 2017, 12:42:26 PM
OK can we stop voting now, I note 26 have proffered an opinion and someone else has posted in the 80-100, but no one over 100+.
So safe to say I'm the extreme outlier having gone for a 98 seat Tory majority. :hmm:
That was me. I just looked at a couple of recent polls and went with them. Looking at the exit polls today, that seems to have been a mistake.
For once I am glad to keep your company* :P
* Is the power of the Taint that strong?
UKIP is a Norwegian blue. :bowler:
Gary Lineaker "I think Theresa May has won own goal of the season"
The Tories are apparently worried about the status of all 22 of their seats in London.
Quote from: mongers on June 08, 2017, 07:08:41 PM
Gary Lineaker "I think Theresa May has won own goal of the season"
Gary shat on May.
Did I get the joke right?
Quote
FrankThomas @FrankThomas27
Tory insiders now saying that they've lost every marginal constituency that Theresa May has visited #BBCelection
Wooops!
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 08, 2017, 07:27:01 PM
Quote from: mongers on June 08, 2017, 07:08:41 PM
Gary Lineaker "I think Theresa May has won own goal of the season"
Gary shat on May.
Did I get the joke right?
You've probably got a better idea of that than me, football pundit with twitter account savages UK PM. :P
Quote from: celedhring on June 08, 2017, 07:38:05 PM
Quote
FrankThomas @FrankThomas27
Tory insiders now saying that they've lost every marginal constituency that Theresa May has visited #BBCelection
Wooops!
:D
Strong and stable soundbites make for weak and vacillating leadership.
It looks like the Tories are likely to be less than 300 for the night, assuming YouGov's NowCast remains as accurate as it has been compared to the Exit poll; Corbyn probably our next prime-minister, propped up by the SNP (who were happy to accept Tory help when they were a minority government in Holyrood, but can't stomach touching them now) and the other minor left of center parties.
Vale of Clwyd to Labour; one of the most marginal seats in the country (only taken by the Tories by 200 votes in 2015), but still a bad result for the Tories.
Honestly, I don't mind saying that I feel sick.
The Queen should relocate to Oxford and raise the Royal banner and begin raising an army.
Wow it is a total disaster. I called it.
After Cameron's Brexit debacle one might think the Tory leadership are actually Labour agent provocateurs.
So this is a bad thing?
Quote from: 11B4V on June 08, 2017, 07:51:00 PM
So this is a bad thing?
Corbyn as PM? Yes. He will be shipping money and guns to the Venezuelan government and Hamas a few days after taking power.
Quote from: Valmy on June 08, 2017, 07:50:19 PM
Wow it is a total disaster. I called it.
After Cameron's Brexit debacle one might think the Tory leadership are actually Labour agent provocateurs.
:blink:
Really?
This was a prime minister who called an entirely unnecessary general election, largely as a vanity project.
She carried on a presidential style campaign, in part modelled on Donald Trumps on, something entirely at variance with our parliamentary style of democracy.
And don't forget in the dying days of the election she said she'd throw away civil liberties in order to confront a rather minor terrorism problem.
Valmy would you be happy with a president promising to quash American rights?
Corbyn is a massive Arsenal fan so he could be a Bolshevik (he is) and I'd support everything he did.
Also, LMAO Brits are so talented at own goals lmao just fucken lol
Quote from: Barrister on June 06, 2017, 11:53:11 AM
I voted Labour minority, because that seems like the worst possible outcome, and that's the world we live in now.
It looks like BB might be right :)
Quote from: FunkMonk on June 08, 2017, 08:01:09 PM
Cornyn is a massive Arsenal fan so he could be a Bolshevik (he is) and I'd support everything he did.
Also, LMAO Brits are so talented at own goals lmao just fucken lol
Arsenal? I thought everyone hated them.
Quote from: FunkMonk on June 08, 2017, 08:01:09 PM
Cornyn is a massive Arsenal fan so he could be a Bolshevik (he is) and I'd support everything he did.
Also, LMAO Brits are so talented at own goals lmao just fucken lol
Gooners. :rolleyes:
Pretty sure it is Manchester United everybody hates.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on June 08, 2017, 08:06:29 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on June 08, 2017, 08:01:09 PM
Cornyn is a massive Arsenal fan so he could be a Bolshevik (he is) and I'd support everything he did.
Also, LMAO Brits are so talented at own goals lmao just fucken lol
Arsenal? I thought everyone hated them.
That's said to be ManU.
Though I don't myself subscribe to that sporting meme.
Footie fans have room enough for more than one hatred in their hearts.
Quote from: mongers on June 08, 2017, 07:58:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 08, 2017, 07:50:19 PM
Wow it is a total disaster. I called it.
After Cameron's Brexit debacle one might think the Tory leadership are actually Labour agent provocateurs.
:blink:
Really?
This was a prime minister who called an entirely unnecessary general election, largely as a vanity project.
She carried on a presidential style campaign, in part modelled on Donald Trumps on, something entirely at variance with our parliamentary style of democracy.
And don't forget in the dying days of the election she said she'd throw away civil liberties in order to confront a rather minor terrorism problem.
Valmy would you be happy with a president promising to quash American rights?
So I should basically not care about this. Beings we're stocked full of crazy here on the left side of the Atlantic.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 08, 2017, 08:12:48 PM
Quote from: mongers on June 08, 2017, 07:58:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 08, 2017, 07:50:19 PM
Wow it is a total disaster. I called it.
After Cameron's Brexit debacle one might think the Tory leadership are actually Labour agent provocateurs.
:blink:
Really?
This was a prime minister who called an entirely unnecessary general election, largely as a vanity project.
She carried on a presidential style campaign, in part modelled on Donald Trumps on, something entirely at variance with our parliamentary style of democracy.
And don't forget in the dying days of the election she said she'd throw away civil liberties in order to confront a rather minor terrorism problem.
Valmy would you be happy with a president promising to quash American rights?
So I should basically not care about this. Beings we're stocked full of crazy here on the left side of the Atlantic.
No I'm saying the May's election plan was to recast her leadership in the mould of a Trump, what the results so far shows is people want don't want a leader who wants to remain aloof and enact more arbitrary policies.
Big result in Scotland, Angus Robertson the SNP leader in the commons has lost to the conservatives. :gasp:
Quote from: Valmy on June 08, 2017, 07:50:19 PM
Wow it is a total disaster. I called it.
After Cameron's Brexit debacle one might think the Tory leadership are actually Labour agent provocateurs.
Seriously. Stop having elections and referendums that you lose. Pretty simple concept.
BBC tweak the exit poll to suggest the Tories will get 322 seats, so still short of a majority.
Labor has already gained five seats. Nationally a 12.8% swing in their direction.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2017/jun/08/live-uk-election-results-in-full-2017
Quote from: mongers on June 08, 2017, 08:21:20 PM
BBC tweak the exit poll to suggest the Tories will get 322 seats, so still short of a majority.
Optimistic of them.
Anyway, I think I'll sign off for the night; was planning the sort of all-nighter I did in 1992, 1997, 2010 and 2015, but I've seen enough now.
Quote from: Agelastus on June 08, 2017, 08:28:18 PM
Quote from: mongers on June 08, 2017, 08:21:20 PM
BBC tweak the exit poll to suggest the Tories will get 322 seats, so still short of a majority.
Optimistic of them.
Anyway, I think I'll sign off for the night; was planning the sort of all-nighter I did in 1992, 1997, 2010 and 2015, but I've seen enough now.
Odd, because it's really on a knife edge now, the three likely outcome are all still possible and just a handful of votes will swing it either way.
Oh and goodnight.
Labor plus 7 seats, Tories treading water.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2017/jun/08/live-uk-election-results-in-full-2017
I do enjoy a good own goal. It's an art.
I've seen random Brits in my social feed saying Corbin - via campaign and manifesto - was a lot less loony left than his labour opposition and UK media painted him.
Interesting trend anyhow... staying tuned to see the results.
Nick Clegg goes down.
Quote from: Jacob on June 08, 2017, 08:47:56 PM
I've seen random Brits in my social feed saying Corbin - via campaign and manifesto - was a lot less loony left than his labour opposition and UK media painted him.
Interesting trend anyhow... staying tuned to see the results.
Yes, the Tory press really have done their worst this time around and it's fallen short; young people have come out in droves to exercise their democratic rights and many would say voting for a positive view of the future.
Young people suck
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 08, 2017, 08:53:11 PM
Young people suck
Not sure what oral sex has to do with the UK election?
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 08, 2017, 08:53:11 PM
Young people suck
Our peers and oldersters are generally selfish fucks. ;)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 08, 2017, 08:50:37 PM
Nick Clegg goes down.
And yet he still can't put the bloody microphone down and step out of the limelight.
Quote from: FunkMonk on June 08, 2017, 08:47:04 PM
I do enjoy a good own goal. It's an art.
I don't know, it wasn't too difficult for our fingerpainting retards.
A triumph of democracy, many turnouts in the region of 75-80%.
Hail Lord Buckethead
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 08, 2017, 09:04:12 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on June 08, 2017, 08:47:04 PM
I do enjoy a good own goal. It's an art.
I don't know, it wasn't too difficult for our fingerpainting retards.
Lol Hillary
At least the SNP is losing lots of seats. Not sure what that is about. I guess they are voting labour again?
And the Liberal Democrats are winning more seats but losing actual numbers of votes.
I think it is about time we mourn the loss of HRH Theresa May as Prime Minister. May history be kind to her :weep:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi62.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fh101%2FMonoriu%2Ftheresa-may-14_zpskbgu9okz.jpg&hash=a5a4090dc7819e4a7112bf9c2a557ba830e8f97e) (http://s62.photobucket.com/user/Monoriu/media/theresa-may-14_zpskbgu9okz.jpg.html)
I don't see much possibility that history will be kind to her.
So this Irish party they might get to keep the Tories in business? Is that a good move for them?
Quote from: Valmy on June 08, 2017, 10:11:38 PM
So this Irish party they might get to keep the Tories in business? Is that a good move for them?
It's not an Irish party, but a Unionist one. And yes they've worked those angles before.
I was not aware Unionists were not Irish. :hmm:
Of course whether or not Irish refers to somebody on the Island of Ireland or in the Republic of Ireland is one of those obnoxious Irish things I usually try to avoid.
I was just curious if the Northern Irish were well disposed to the Tories in general or if this Unionist party would avoid being kingmakers for fear it might weaken their support back home.
Quote from: Valmy on June 08, 2017, 10:38:01 PM
I was not aware Unionists were not Irish. :hmm:
Of course whether or not Irish refers to somebody on the Island of Ireland or in the Republic of Ireland is one of those obnoxious Irish things I usually try to avoid.
I was just curious if the Northern Irish were well disposed to the Tories in general or if this Unionist party would avoid being kingmakers for fear it might weaken their support back home.
My understanding (which could be wrong) is that NI Unionists are well disposed to the Tories.
And that they would be offended at being called "irish".
Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2017, 10:43:45 PM
And that they would be offended at being called "irish".
Jesus Christ. FINE. This marvelous British Unionist Party of Proud Protestants :P
Why is the SNP getting pummeled? I mean I am glad to see it but they seem to be losing seats to the Conservatives, Labour, and Lib Dems even in their safe constituencies.
The Proud British Imperial Unionist Party of Proud Ulster Protestant Orangemen, with no Dogs or Irish Allowed. :)
Conservatives are going to squeak by, but Labour has gained a lot of seats. (31 as of posting)
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2017/jun/08/live-uk-election-results-in-full-2017
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 08, 2017, 11:05:43 PM
Conservatives are going to squeak by, but Labour has gained a lot of seats. (31 as of posting)
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2017/jun/08/live-uk-election-results-in-full-2017
BBC is still forecasting a hung Parliament
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 08, 2017, 11:06:37 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 08, 2017, 11:05:43 PM
Conservatives are going to squeak by, but Labour has gained a lot of seats. (31 as of posting)
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2017/jun/08/live-uk-election-results-in-full-2017
BBC is still forecasting a hung Parliament
We can but hope the Taint doesn't falter during this difficult time.
Quote from: Valmy on June 08, 2017, 10:10:42 PM
I don't see much possibility that history will be kind to her.
If she loses, it might kindly forget her.
Nice to see that the US doesn't have the market cornered on awful candidates.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 08, 2017, 06:15:57 PM
Quote from: mongers on June 08, 2017, 12:42:26 PM
OK can we stop voting now, I note 26 have proffered an opinion and someone else has posted in the 80-100, but no one over 100+.
So safe to say I'm the extreme outlier having gone for a 98 seat Tory majority. :hmm:
That was me. I just looked at a couple of recent polls and went with them. Looking at the exit polls today, that seems to have been a mistake.
So Tim ties for the worst prediction on the forum. It is actually stunning how consistently wrong one person can be.
Interesting results. Good to see the tories get a good kicking, they deserve it. I'm particularly pleased by the results in Scotland, looks like the tide is going out for the nationalists.
Wow - these results seem like a total mess. There's no easy Tory + DUP result. Lib Dems being wiped out means there's no easy middle party to try and sway.
Should be fun times to follow. :(
The Article 50 task force in Brussels scratching their heads and wondering if they ever have someone to talk to...
Quote from: Valmy on June 08, 2017, 10:48:48 PM
Why is the SNP getting pummeled? I mean I am glad to see it but they seem to be losing seats to the Conservatives, Labour, and Lib Dems even in their safe constituencies.
Perhaps referendum from voters on SNP making plans for another Scottish referendum? Seems a pretty fair and good repudiation. :)
Seems the best likely outcome came to pass in England :w00t:
Though
1: ouch. Northern Ireland becomes a one party state (+sinn fein). What on earth happened there?
2: Scotland has gone very very tory. Worrying.
Guess we shall be seeing the Scottish Tory leader as overall Tory leader in the not too distant future.
Quote from: Tyr on June 09, 2017, 12:38:26 AM
Seems the best likely outcome came to pass in England :w00t:
Though
1: ouch. Northern Ireland becomes a one party state (+sinn fein). What OK earth happened there?
2: Scotland has gone very very tory. Worrying.
Guess we shall be seeing the Scottish Tory leader as overall Tory leader in the not too distant future.
In what fucking possible way?!
Quote from: Tamas on June 09, 2017, 12:44:56 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 09, 2017, 12:38:26 AM
Seems the best likely outcome came to pass in England :w00t:
Though
1: ouch. Northern Ireland becomes a one party state (+sinn fein). What OK earth happened there?
2: Scotland has gone very very tory. Worrying.
Guess we shall be seeing the Scottish Tory leader as overall Tory leader in the not too distant future.
In what fucking possible way?!
We now could see BoJo heading a minority gov! Otherwise, yeah...I mean Labour headed coalition gov't? The party where its own MPs don't agree?
The Tories have had their power shattered. They can't unilaterally make decisions for the rest of us.
But at the same time they're still the biggest party and forced to take responsibility for the brexit mess that they created.
Quote from: Tyr on June 09, 2017, 12:52:45 AM
The Tories have had their power shattered. They can't unilaterally make decisions for the rest of us.
But at the same time they're still the biggest party and forced to take responsibility for the brexit mess that they created.
The voters created the Brexit mess.
Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2017, 12:54:58 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 09, 2017, 12:52:45 AM
The Tories have had their power shattered. They can't unilaterally make decisions for the rest of us.
But at the same time they're still the biggest party and forced to take responsibility for the brexit mess that they created.
The voters created the Brexit mess.
:yes:
Next election in November :bowler:
Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2017, 12:54:58 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 09, 2017, 12:52:45 AM
The Tories have had their power shattered. They can't unilaterally make decisions for the rest of us.
But at the same time they're still the biggest party and forced to take responsibility for the brexit mess that they created.
The voters created the Brexit mess.
True. But they should never have been put in that position. Only due to Tory infighting was the whole stupid thing even an issue. Europe was important for 20% of the population max pre ref.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 09, 2017, 01:01:48 AM
Next election in November :bowler:
Y'all do seem to love having them. :lol:
I'll say one thing for Corbyn he's a fine campaigner. But then he is a figure from the past and British politicians used to know how to place an appealing offering before the electorate.
Not only chaos is now complete, but Corbyn is here to stay.
Incredible.
I am actually a bit conflicted here. If UK politics is in a mess, does that mean they can't proceed with the Brexit negotiations and I get to keep my UK + EU passport for a little while longer?
Quote from: Monoriu on June 09, 2017, 01:28:31 AM
I am actually a bit conflicted here. If UK politics is in a mess, does that mean they can't proceed with the Brexit negotiations and I get to keep my UK + EU passport for a little while longer?
I read that it is unlikely the EU would agree to a longer time period for negotiations. It weighs down their own political projects, especially now that Macron and Merkel might want to try to reform the Eurozone.
I think this election result (less time, wafer-thin Tory majority which means the most extreme Brexiteers must be heard, maybe even a new campaign soon) can only mean "no deal".
Do you mean plurality, Z? There isn't a Tory majority.
Apparently, Zac Goldsmith got his seat back.
The island appears to be ripe for invasion. Do we know any authoritarian magnate with huge estates in Normandy?
http://www.politico.eu/article/uk-election-ends-in-hung-parliament/
QuoteTheresa May under pressure as UK returns a hung parliament
Britain wakes up Friday morning more divided and uncertain about its future than anyone thought possible.
A general election that was supposed to settle political and constitutional questions thrown up by Britain's exit from the European Union failed — answering none, raising more and leaving no party with a majority in parliament.
From a position of relative strength, dominating a compliant parliament which had accepted Brexit, Theresa May is now struggling to cling on to her job, unsure whether she will even be able to form a minority government.
After a night of political drama which saw Labour's vote share surge by 10 points, halving the 2010 deficit, three things now seem certain: May is mortally wounded; Jeremy Corbyn is safe as Labour party leader for as long as he wants; and Britain is in for a prolonged period of political instability which may only be solved by a second general election.
If Brussels had come round to the prospect of an unyielding two-year Brexit negotiation under May — grating in its parochialism maybe, but at least grown up — they now face the nightmare prospect of a new partner across the table or a weakened May beholden to her backbenchers and a small retinue of Northern Irish MPs.
A hung parliament — in which no single party commands a majority — is certain. Her future as prime minister hangs by a thread. She could be gone by the end of the day. A second general election could be called within months — taking place as early as August. Brexit is also now up in the air — as even David Davis admitted.
The Brexit Secretary told Sky News at 2.30am that the election was, in part, about getting a mandate for "the sort of Brexit we want." It was also designed to give the government more time to complete the process by ensuring that the incoming administration would have a clear five years before having to call an election.
He suggested the U.K. government may have lost a mandate to exit customs union and single market. "[Our manifesto] said we wanted to leave the customs union and the single market, but get access to them. That's what it was about, that's what we put in front of the British people, we'll see by tomorrow whether they've accepted that or not," he said.
Nigel Farage was quick to warn that he would re-enter the political fray if Brexit was softened. "We may well be looking down the barrel of a second referendum."
The Democratic Unionist Party in Northern Ireland — potential king-makers if the Tories are to remain in power — will look to soften Brexit around the edges, particularly in order to ensure there is no threat to the soft border with the Republic of Ireland, so crucial for the region's economic security.
...
East Fife in Scotland decided by 2 votes. Ouch.
A few around Glasgow where the snp only squeezed in too. So close to being much worse for them
Quote from: mongers on June 08, 2017, 08:30:58 PM
Odd, because it's really on a knife edge now, the three likely outcome are all still possible and just a handful of votes will swing it either way.
Oh and goodnight.
Well, YouGov's model seems to have broken down a little after I went to bed (actually, I already new that - but the problems with Scotland looked like being balanced by an error the other way in England and Wales.)
So I once again proved that I really can't tell how a British political night is going (I remember saying the EU referendum was still in doubt almost up to the final results coming out that tipped it over the line.)
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 09, 2017, 01:01:48 AM
Next election in November :bowler:
Possibly even earlier - I've already seen some suggestions of August online. Can they wait until November with Article 50 triggered and the 2 year deadline looming?)
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 09, 2017, 01:14:17 AM
I'll say one thing for Corbyn he's a fine campaigner. But then he is a figure from the past and British politicians used to know how to place an appealing offering before the electorate.
He produced the type of "give-away, something for everyone" manifesto that I hoped had finally been killed off following the problems that have followed parties winning with them in the past. The electorate basically proved that a bribe still works, regardless of the cost a few years down the line.
Although the problem wasn't so much Labour's manifesto as the Tories combined disastrous manifesto and campaign; looking at the small turnout increase of 2.3% combined with the apparent large increase in youth/young person turnout I think there's a fair chance the Tories campaign and manifesto caused a chunk of their vote to stay at home.
-------------------------------------------------
As for the mathematics?
650 MPs minus the Speaker and his deputies (who should follow Denison's rule if called to vote and thus shouldn't vote "yes" in a no-confidence vote or in general in any votes unless they are tied) minus Sinn Fein (who refuse to represent their constituents in Westminster) gives an effective requirement for a majority of [650-4-7]/2 = 320 seats.
Assuming the remaining four seats declare as one would expect (3 for Tory, and, given the number of recounts, 1 for Labour) that puts the Tories on 318 (minus speaker and Deputy to make 316). Although Sylvia Hermon probably wouldn't provide "confidence and supply" to the Tories given the circumstances of how she became independent, the DUP probably would.
Which makes the talk this morning from certain people on the left regarding Corbyn going to the Queen with a "progressive alliance" government fairly delusional as they simply don't have the votes to survive a no-confidence motion in parliament, even if the DUP abstain.
But that of course leads on to another problem - the Tories can't allow Theresa May to lead them into another election, but ditching her immediately leaves no-one to talk to the EU in 11 days (she'd still be acting PM even while a leadership contest was being fought, but that's hardly the right position to be in when the talks start from either Britain or the EU's perspective.)
Of course, her putative successor would have no time to come up with his own Brexit strategy and stance either since Article 50 has already been triggered, so May's existing decisions would still be influencing the negotiations even after her departure - so maybe it wouldn't matter if the discussions were opened by a "lame duck" PM.
Anyway, although Boris is staying quiet it does seem likely that this may be his chance to lead the party and country; although in some ways this could be "God Help Us" as he's competent enough only when he doesn't open his mouth and let his wit get the better of his common sense.
Edit: Added in the subtraction of the two seats of the Tory Speaker and Deputy Speaker.
Quote from: Tyr on June 09, 2017, 02:23:57 AM
East Fife in Scotland decided by 2 votes. Ouch.
A few around Glasgow where the snp only squeezed in too. So close to being much worse for them
I guess that counts as the seat the exit poll got wrong in Scotland then - and I don't think it can be blamed for that.
"Ouch" indeed.
---------------------------------------
And as an addendum to my previous post it sounds like the DUP may not be willing to "play ball" with Theresa May - whether that's a "we'll work with a different Tory to May", an "offer me a good deal" or a "declaration of neutrality" position is still unknown.
Fascinating; no-one at the BBC has noticed that my local coverage (on now) has the wrong subtitle feed.
If you believe the subtitles they're talking to someone about social care in Saffron Walden - while they're actually talking to a UKIP guy in Huntingdon.
Doing the maths it's not so great as it first seemed. A ConDup (conned up. Geddit?) coalition will have a majority.
Oh well.
Seriously NI. WTF. The young didn't vote there or something?
Quote from: Tyr on June 09, 2017, 03:30:32 AM
Doing the maths it's not so great as it first seemed. A ConDup (conned up. Geddit?) coalition will have a majority.
Oh well.
Seriously NI. WTF. The young didn't vote there or something?
Turnout looks about 7% up in Northern Ireland - with the result being that the SDLP (Labour's traditional allies) and the UUP (the closest to the Tories) were squeezed out of existence.
Also I'd guess part of the problem for the SNP is that turnout's actually down in Scotland.
At least someone had some fun :D
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DB2G993XsAACJJB?format=jpg)
Looks like May has struck a deal with the Unionists (I assume that's who DUP are).
Does that mean a soft Brexit then? Or DUP is ok with border checks and customs toward Ireland n' stuff?
Quote from: Tamas on June 09, 2017, 04:32:20 AM
Looks like May has struck a deal with the Unionists (I assume that's who DUP are).
Does that mean a soft Brexit then? Or DUP is ok with border checks and customs toward Ireland n' stuff?
DUP will want assurances about the NI border staying open, and no deal seems to have been reached yet (which given the timeframe is not surprising - the DUP are meeting after May plans to go to the Queen); however, conversely, even above the Tories they are the party least likely to work with Corbyn due to his views on the IRA etc.
Although it wasn't the DUP (who were insurgents against the "official" Unionist party originally) before the 1970s Unionist MPs took the "Conservative and Unionist" whip.
Hopefully this means the Swiss (free movement of people though customs controls) or Norwegian path is open to us.
It seems that May intends to go on as PM. I sincerely can't see how she'll manage after such a blunder, her reputation must be shattered.
Quote from: Tyr on June 09, 2017, 04:58:20 AM
Hopefully this means the Swiss (free movement of people though customs controls) or Norwegian path is open to us.
You mean if the EU chooses to consider that option at all?
Quote from: Maladict on June 09, 2017, 05:10:38 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 09, 2017, 04:58:20 AM
Hopefully this means the Swiss (free movement of people though customs controls) or Norwegian path is open to us.
You mean if the EU chooses to consider that option at all?
I don't think that May will have much choice about it, she'll have to soften her position on Brexit, as an open border will be THE demand that DUP will extract from her. Thus, some level of free movement of people will be inevitable for her to accept.
I am not convinced the DUP is that keen on the open border thing. Can Brits enlighten us?
Quote from: The Larch on June 09, 2017, 05:24:22 AM
Quote from: Maladict on June 09, 2017, 05:10:38 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 09, 2017, 04:58:20 AM
Hopefully this means the Swiss (free movement of people though customs controls) or Norwegian path is open to us.
You mean if the EU chooses to consider that option at all?
I don't think that May will have much choice about it, she'll have to soften her position on Brexit, as an open border will be THE demand that DUP will extract from her. Thus, some level of free movement of people will be inevitable for her to accept.
Was May ever publicly for a hard border in Ireland?
At any rate, I don't see how the UK avoids hard brexit. With the government in disarray, what's the chance of any deal being managed? Seems like we are heading for default separation.
Quote from: Tamas on June 09, 2017, 05:26:05 AM
I am not convinced the DUP is that keen on the open border thing. Can Brits enlighten us?
Strange that given that just a few minutes ago, you didn't seem to have ever heard of DUP before. ;)
Quote from: Tamas on June 09, 2017, 05:26:05 AM
I am not convinced the DUP is that keen on the open border thing. Can Brits enlighten us?
It totally is. They specifically want to avoid a hard border with the Republic of Ireland. Remember that Remain won in Northern Ireland, after all.
Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2017, 05:31:01 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 09, 2017, 05:26:05 AM
I am not convinced the DUP is that keen on the open border thing. Can Brits enlighten us?
Strange that given that just a few minutes ago, you didn't seem to have ever heard of DUP before. ;)
Tamas' default position on anything is "cynical suspicion". :P
Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2017, 05:31:01 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 09, 2017, 05:26:05 AM
I am not convinced the DUP is that keen on the open border thing. Can Brits enlighten us?
Strange that given that just a few minutes ago, you didn't seem to have ever heard of DUP before. ;)
Yes but, I talk to other people.
Quote from: The Larch on June 09, 2017, 05:31:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2017, 05:31:01 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 09, 2017, 05:26:05 AM
I am not convinced the DUP is that keen on the open border thing. Can Brits enlighten us?
Strange that given that just a few minutes ago, you didn't seem to have ever heard of DUP before. ;)
Tamas' default position on anything is "cynical suspicion". :P
I was made to believe by a Briton that DUP would be quite alright with a proper border.
Quote from: Tamas on June 09, 2017, 05:32:15 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2017, 05:31:01 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 09, 2017, 05:26:05 AM
I am not convinced the DUP is that keen on the open border thing. Can Brits enlighten us?
Strange that given that just a few minutes ago, you didn't seem to have ever heard of DUP before. ;)
Yes but, I talk to other people.
You mean you asked other people around you about it in the last hour?
Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2017, 05:33:37 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 09, 2017, 05:32:15 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2017, 05:31:01 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 09, 2017, 05:26:05 AM
I am not convinced the DUP is that keen on the open border thing. Can Brits enlighten us?
Strange that given that just a few minutes ago, you didn't seem to have ever heard of DUP before. ;)
Yes but, I talk to other people.
You mean you asked other people around you about it in the last hour?
why is that shocking?
Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2017, 05:30:19 AM
Quote from: The Larch on June 09, 2017, 05:24:22 AM
Quote from: Maladict on June 09, 2017, 05:10:38 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 09, 2017, 04:58:20 AM
Hopefully this means the Swiss (free movement of people though customs controls) or Norwegian path is open to us.
You mean if the EU chooses to consider that option at all?
I don't think that May will have much choice about it, she'll have to soften her position on Brexit, as an open border will be THE demand that DUP will extract from her. Thus, some level of free movement of people will be inevitable for her to accept.
Was May ever publicly for a hard border in Ireland?
I don't think she's ever given much thought about NI at all, to be frank. In any case, the border agreements between NI and the Republic predate their entrance in the EU, IIRC. What remains to be seen is how they'll work once the UK is out but the Republic remains in the EU.
Quote from: Tamas on June 09, 2017, 05:33:04 AM
Quote from: The Larch on June 09, 2017, 05:31:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2017, 05:31:01 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 09, 2017, 05:26:05 AM
I am not convinced the DUP is that keen on the open border thing. Can Brits enlighten us?
Strange that given that just a few minutes ago, you didn't seem to have ever heard of DUP before. ;)
Tamas' default position on anything is "cynical suspicion". :P
I was made to believe by a Briton that DUP would be quite alright with a proper border.
The DUP support Brexit, but clearly a soft Brexit.
See here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39976319
Quote from: Tamas on June 09, 2017, 05:36:42 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2017, 05:33:37 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 09, 2017, 05:32:15 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2017, 05:31:01 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 09, 2017, 05:26:05 AM
I am not convinced the DUP is that keen on the open border thing. Can Brits enlighten us?
Strange that given that just a few minutes ago, you didn't seem to have ever heard of DUP before. ;)
Yes but, I talk to other people.
You mean you asked other people around you about it in the last hour?
why is that shocking?
I was just seeking a clarification. Not being shocked. :P
Quote from: Tamas on June 09, 2017, 05:33:04 AM
Quote from: The Larch on June 09, 2017, 05:31:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2017, 05:31:01 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 09, 2017, 05:26:05 AM
I am not convinced the DUP is that keen on the open border thing. Can Brits enlighten us?
Strange that given that just a few minutes ago, you didn't seem to have ever heard of DUP before. ;)
Tamas' default position on anything is "cynical suspicion". :P
I was made to believe by a Briton that DUP would be quite alright with a proper border.
Then you should talk with better educated ones, because that's not their position at all.
Quote'Nobody wants a hard Brexit' DUP will fight 'no deal' EU split amid Tory coalition bid
THE LEADER of the Democratic Unionist Party, who could join forces with the Conservatives to form a coalition government, have said they will not back a 'hard' Brexit.
Arlene Foster, whose party has increased their presence in Westminster to 10 seats, have been muted as a potential partner to help Theresa May to remain in Number 10.
If the Conservatives can secure 316 seats or more, the DUP's gains in Northern Ireland are enough to prop up Mrs May's government bid.
However, the Prime Minister may have to make concessions on her desired Brexit, with Ms Foster keen for her Northern Ireland to remain in the single market and involved in the free movement area after the split.
She told Sky News: "No-one wants to see a 'hard' Brexit, what we want to see is a workable plan to leave the European Union, and that's what the national vote was about – therefore we need to get on with that.
"However, we need to do it in a way that respects the specific circumstances of Northern Ireland, and, of course, our shared history and geography with the Republic of Ireland."
Ms Foster added: "No-one wants to see a hard border, Sinn Fein talk about it a lot, but nobody wants a hard border.
"Certainly that's not what the Dublin government want to see, not what the London government wants to see and not what Stormont want to see."
Wasn't NOT having open borders what the Brexit vote was about?
Quote from: The Brain on June 09, 2017, 05:42:12 AM
Wasn't NOT having open borders what the Brexit vote was about?
It was about the very personal, single most important grievance with the world of every Leave voter
Quote from: The Brain on June 09, 2017, 05:42:12 AM
Wasn't NOT having open borders what the Brexit vote was about?
With the rest of the EU and the migrants. I don't think anyone was thinking all that much about Ireland / a desire to help start the Troubles again.
Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2017, 06:11:08 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 09, 2017, 05:42:12 AM
Wasn't NOT having open borders what the Brexit vote was about?
With the rest of the EU and the migrants. I don't think anyone was thinking all that much about Ireland / a desire to help start the Troubles again.
Not on the Leave side anyways. Not a whole lot of thinking was done there at all.
Your scorn rings hollow as a foreigner with an English job. :P
A triumph for democracy in this country,many seats with 75-80% turn out, younger people engaged and voting in large numbers, terrorist singularly failing to deter voters or impact the result. :bowler:
Oh and for you Americans, this time the party/leader with the largest number of votes gets to form the government. :P
Quote from: mongers on June 09, 2017, 08:18:26 AM
Oh and for you Americans, this time the party/leader with the largest number of votes gets to form the government. :P
Of course, the parliamentary system is a bit like the electoral college writ large.
Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2017, 08:29:15 AM
Quote from: mongers on June 09, 2017, 08:18:26 AM
Oh and for you Americans, this time the party/leader with the largest number of votes gets to form the government. :P
Of course, the parliamentary system is a bit like the electoral college writ large.
Well it is a wee bit variable in nature. :whistle:
Please, you Brits are experiencing national schizophrenia. No triumph of democracy in Britain of late, if anything Britain is serving as a good argument for unfree systems like they have in China.
Quote from: The Brain on June 09, 2017, 05:42:12 AM
Wasn't NOT having open borders what the Brexit vote was about?
To some it was about that.
Others who didn't understand the current situation thought it was about that.
To others it was not at all about that and they wanted a Norway/Switzerland like situation all along
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 09, 2017, 08:46:04 AM
Please, you Brits are experiencing national schizophrenia. No triumph of democracy in Britain of late, if anything Britain is serving as a good argument for unfree systems like they have in China.
You should read Mono's posts sometimes.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 09, 2017, 08:46:04 AM
Please, you Brits are experiencing national schizophrenia. No triumph of democracy in Britain of late, if anything Britain is serving as a good argument for unfree systems like they have in China.
It is true. The British have taken democracy, and used it to plunge their stable, prospering country into political chaos and utter economic unpredictability. International ridicule and dwindling influence is just the cherry on top. :(
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FLtOwaGX.jpg&hash=3727a5e65772e258b793530b2a03548e09b5873a)
That makes no sense. God I hate memes.
One upside of this result is I can have a go at quantifying the Taint.
Timmay voted in the same 80-100 majority option as I did, turns out the Tories are in a minority of 18, so that's 54 seats less than predicts, if we assume Timmay went for the categories mid-point of 90 seats.
So that's a 8.3% shift in the outcome because of the Taint, and he only made a handful of posts in the thread and just clicked a poll option; can you imagine the result shift if he'd fully deployed the Taint with its enthusiastic sloppy Labrador style of posts? :hmm:
Powerful stuff. :ccr:
Quote from: Tamas on June 09, 2017, 09:02:12 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 09, 2017, 08:46:04 AM
Please, you Brits are experiencing national schizophrenia. No triumph of democracy in Britain of late, if anything Britain is serving as a good argument for unfree systems like they have in China.
It is true. The British have taken democracy, and used it to plunge their stable, prospering country into political chaos and utter economic unpredictability. International ridicule and dwindling influence is just the cherry on top. :(
What a stupid thing to say.
Quote from: Valmy on June 09, 2017, 09:09:41 AM
That makes no sense. God I hate memes.
The DUP has historical ties with Unionist militias in the Ulster.
Quote from: celedhring on June 09, 2017, 09:16:13 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 09, 2017, 09:09:41 AM
That makes no sense. God I hate memes.
The DUP has historical ties with Unionist militias in the Ulster.
I got the 'OMG HYPOCRISY!!!!11' part. The meme just sucks.
Quote from: Valmy on June 09, 2017, 09:09:41 AM
That makes no sense. God I hate memes.
What's not to get?
Corbyn spoke to Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA.
The Tories have a cosy working relationship with the DUP, who have some pretty heavy links to Loyalist terrorist groups.
Unionist militias were not terrorists.
And Tamas is basically correct, to be frank. I honestly think Britain's recent troubles are more damning of democracy than even Donald Trump. With Trump, we have no choice but to expose our country's rule to the hands of the electorate once every four years, and there's always a chance a demagogue slips through. With Brexit, as I said at the time, you had a referendum that was not constitutionally required on an issue Parliament was more than competent to decide for the voters (it is Parliament's job to make decisions for voters), and then even the negotiations over that bad direct-democracy decision and its bad result has been fucked up even more by yet another election that did not even need to happen.
It's quite clear to me that Britain is showing the more say you give the people, the worse the outcome.
Quote from: Valmy on June 09, 2017, 09:09:41 AM
That makes no sense. God I hate memes.
I think it's alluding to the historic ties of some members of the DUP to loyalist terrorist groups.
Oh and the fact it was founded by this guy, someone who stocked the fires of the conflict in the first place:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2FGuardian%2Fuk%2Fgallery%2F2008%2Fmar%2F05%2Fpolitics.northernireland%2Fpsi-2784.jpg&hash=264c2d8bfe6e60b350654168ae81ab88508985a2)
Separatists are scum, nothing is unjustified in fighting against separatism.
So right now the British election results are the top news story on Washington Post's website, ETA on how long a Trump incident comes in to knock it off.
'When you hypocritically have to rely on EVIL TERRORISTS from Northern Ireland'
How does that picture represent that?
Can May even rely on all Tory MPs when it comes to Brexit? Ken Clarke comes to mind, but there may be a handful of other Remainers? And then you have the ultra-Brexiteers, that may not vote for any deal because they actually want to have a clean cut.
Quote from: Valmy on June 09, 2017, 09:25:07 AM
'When you hypocritically have to rely on EVIL TERRORISTS from Northern Ireland'
How does that picture represent that?
Corbyn's expression.
He looks sceptical and very "oh really?"
Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2017, 05:30:19 AM
Was May ever publicly for a hard border in Ireland?
She is for it unless she's not, in which case she is against it, although being for it is an option as well. She wants to do stuff, stuff that will happen once it's done. She will be decisive and make decisions, and those decisions will be what is decided, decisively, once the decision is made.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 09, 2017, 09:50:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2017, 05:30:19 AM
Was May ever publicly for a hard border in Ireland?
She is for it unless she's not, in which case she is against it, although being for it is an option as well. She wants to do stuff, stuff that will happen once it's done. She will be decisive and make decisions, and those decisions will be what is decided, decisively, once the decision is made.
She only ever wanted a Strong and Stable border. :rolleyes:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 09, 2017, 09:50:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2017, 05:30:19 AM
Was May ever publicly for a hard border in Ireland?
She is for it unless she's not, in which case she is against it, although being for it is an option as well. She wants to do stuff, stuff that will happen once it's done. She will be decisive and make decisions, and those decisions will be what is decided, decisively, once the decision is made.
Indeed, she intends to stay on as PM to provide "certainty" :hmm:
She's 'aving a laff :P
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 09, 2017, 09:56:30 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 09, 2017, 09:50:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2017, 05:30:19 AM
Was May ever publicly for a hard border in Ireland?
She is for it unless she's not, in which case she is against it, although being for it is an option as well. She wants to do stuff, stuff that will happen once it's done. She will be decisive and make decisions, and those decisions will be what is decided, decisively, once the decision is made.
Indeed, she intends to stay on as PM to provide "certainty" :hmm:
She's 'aving a laff :P
:D
Certainty as in Britain really will have a coalition of chaos?
"My government will provide certainty, only the Conservatives can guarantee a complete balls-up in the negotiations with the EU."
That DUP gal looks menacing.
Read that DUP is religious-reactionary and opposes LGBT rights, abortion, is in favor of death penalty, does believe in creationism, doesn't believe in climate change etc. And that's a government party in Britain now? :yuk:
They sound like Republicans.
Quote from: Zanza on June 09, 2017, 10:54:22 AM
Read that DUP is religious-reactionary and opposes LGBT rights, abortion, is in favor of death penalty, does believe in creationism, doesn't believe in climate change etc. And that's a government party in Britain now? :yuk:
Need I remind you that much of the American South is dominated by immigrants from Northern Ireland :P
the Irish ruin everything.
I guess David Cameron is very happy about the result. If May is knifed in the back in the next days or weeks her only legacy will be that she botched a general election and needlessly squandered time and harded positions on Brexit.
Quote from: derspiess on June 09, 2017, 10:51:42 AM
That DUP gal looks menacing.
Down right corner.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FW7CNcom.png&hash=181d476001c8735557685fb1c931bd2a9d5ce40b)
They really should stick to drawing dudes in ski masks. :lol:
Quote from: Zanza on June 09, 2017, 10:54:22 AM
Read that DUP is religious-reactionary and opposes LGBT rights, abortion, is in favor of death penalty, does believe in creationism, doesn't believe in climate change etc. And that's a government party in Britain now? :yuk:
:lol:
Reunite Ireland!
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 09, 2017, 09:50:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2017, 05:30:19 AM
Was May ever publicly for a hard border in Ireland?
She is for it unless she's not, in which case she is against it, although being for it is an option as well. She wants to do stuff, stuff that will happen once it's done. She will be decisive and make decisions, and those decisions will be what is decided, decisively, once the decision is made.
May = Angela Merkel 2.0 or a cheap knock-off?
Well, I thought this was all quite remarkable. Obviously any time the party of the feral rich gets a kick in the teeth, I'm always delighted but there were a couple of components to this election that I thought were particularly noteworthy. The young actually voted, that doesn't happen very often. The Labour party was able to get a strong showing (an extremely unexpected strong showing) at the polls with a manifesto that was identifiable and unapologetically left wing, rather than the Tory manifesto without the overt racism and xenophobia that we've been offered for the last 25 years or so.
The hated geography teacher and his unacceptable views from the 70's has apparently pulled off something quite confounding. what now Blairites? Double down on the hate I expect.
Also can't wait for this Conservative and Unionist government of Strength and Stability, the only credible government and the only credible Prime Minister that can lead us out of the chaos of brexit created by the Conservative Party. You couldn't make this stuff up.
Quote from: fromtia on June 09, 2017, 11:26:28 AM
The hated geography teacher and his unacceptable views from the 70's has apparently pulled off something quite confounding. what now Blairites? Double down on the hate I expect.
*sigh*
Quote from: fromtia on June 09, 2017, 11:29:03 AM
Also can't wait for this Conservative and Unionist government of Strength and Stability, the only credible government and the only credible Prime Minister that can lead us out of the chaos of brexit created by the Conservative Party. You couldn't make this stuff up.
Pretty sure you could. That is a political script as old as dirt.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 09, 2017, 11:23:41 AM
Quote from: Zanza on June 09, 2017, 10:54:22 AM
Read that DUP is religious-reactionary and opposes LGBT rights, abortion, is in favor of death penalty, does believe in creationism, doesn't believe in climate change etc. And that's a government party in Britain now? :yuk:
:lol:
Reunite Ireland!
The Republic gets a gay half-Indian prime minister now. I think they moved on.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 09, 2017, 11:25:59 AM
May = Angela Merkel 2.0 or a cheap knock-off?
Cheap knock-off. Merkel won three elections and will win a fourth in September. She's back to her pre-immigrant crisis popularity.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DB3PPqBUQAADDMe.jpg)
Corbyn is the best Labour campaigner since Attlee right after the war.
Quote from: Zanza on June 09, 2017, 11:33:31 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 09, 2017, 11:23:41 AM
Quote from: Zanza on June 09, 2017, 10:54:22 AM
Read that DUP is religious-reactionary and opposes LGBT rights, abortion, is in favor of death penalty, does believe in creationism, doesn't believe in climate change etc. And that's a government party in Britain now? :yuk:
:lol:
Reunite Ireland!
The Republic gets a gay half-Indian prime minister now. I think they moved on.
More seriously, the reason Ireland is not so interested in Northern Ireland is because Ulster is home to many nutcases, and would be a hindrance, or so I was told by an Irishman. Still those bloody orangists deserve the Garda in Derry.
From which party did the votes come from? I suspected that the UKIP voters were going back to Labour earlier.
Quote from: Zanza on June 09, 2017, 11:35:39 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 09, 2017, 11:25:59 AM
May = Angela Merkel 2.0 or a cheap knock-off?
Cheap knock-off. Merkel won three elections and will win a fourth in September. She's back to her pre-immigrant crisis popularity.
Well, I was thinking of Merkel's fine art of waiting out instead of takings decisions, and when she takes ones it's a disaster, but yes elections is a more important criterion though Merkel has the Große Koalition option if she gets a hung parliament.
Quote from: Valmy on June 09, 2017, 11:40:20 AM
From which party did the votes come from? I suspected that the UKIP voters were going back to Labour earlier.
"UKIP lost their permanent seat on Questiontime."
Quote from: fromtia on June 09, 2017, 11:55:33 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 09, 2017, 11:40:20 AM
From which party did the votes come from? I suspected that the UKIP voters were going back to Labour earlier.
"UKIP lost their permanent seat on Questiontime."
Yeah and they clearly did not all go flocking to the Tories given what just happened.
QuoteRest of world: Don't Brexit it's a bad idea.
UK: Watch this..
Rest of world: Wtf?! Alright, just make sure it's a soft-
UK: HARD BREXIT!
Rest of world: Okay, christ. Just don't make it harder for yourselves.
UK: And we're going to do it without a government!
Rest of world: .. Why do you do what you do?
:bowler:
Quote from: Zanza on June 09, 2017, 12:13:30 PM
QuoteRest of world: Don't Brexit it's a bad idea.
UK: Watch this..
Rest of world: Wtf?! Alright, just make sure it's a soft-
UK: HARD BREXIT!
Rest of world: Okay, christ. Just don't make it harder for yourselves.
UK: And we're going to do it without a government!
Rest of world: .. Why do you do what you do?
:bowler:
The UK joins the US in the "hold my beer and watch this!" country club.
Quote from: Malthus on June 09, 2017, 12:24:26 PM
Quote from: Zanza on June 09, 2017, 12:13:30 PM
QuoteRest of world: Don't Brexit it's a bad idea.
UK: Watch this..
Rest of world: Wtf?! Alright, just make sure it's a soft-
UK: HARD BREXIT!
Rest of world: Okay, christ. Just don't make it harder for yourselves.
UK: And we're going to do it without a government!
Rest of world: .. Why do you do what you do?
:bowler:
The UK joins the US in the "hold my beer and watch this!" country club.
Maybe the French have been right all along, maybe Anglo's are the bad guys.
The problem with Sanders/Corbyn style bribe policies isn't that they can't win elections, but that many countries have already tried them and had to reform them 20-30 years later. It's weird some people want to ignore that history.
I do generally think, as someone who is right-of-center, that the British left did need some form of identity opposite just being a watered down version of the Tories. The fact that Corbyn's message particularly resonates with young people tells me that the message they've settled on is the wrong one, maybe not at the ballot box, but definitely if they're ever in power again.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 09, 2017, 12:42:09 PM
The problem with Sanders/Corbyn style bribe policies isn't that they can't win elections, but that many countries have already tried them and had to reform them 20-30 years later. It's weird some people want to ignore that history.
Many people weren't born then?
Quote from: mongers on June 04, 2017, 05:18:02 PM
Around 100 hours to go till the likely result of the UK general election becomes apparent, so what are you predictions for the result?
I'll leave the poll open for the next 12-20 hours to give anyone interested a chance to express their opinion, before I lock it for prosperity.
Because of the practical limited to poll choices, the real world probabilities of some events and the possible confusion in political outcomes if labour does astonishingly well, I've left the last three polling options as non-numeric ones.
NB I've also intentionally left off all the possible Conservative coalitions with smaller parties, as it would be too complicated and it's quite likely a conservative minority government could function with the non-formal support of a handful of N.I. unionists, as has happened in the past.
I picked a minority Conservative government. :)
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 09, 2017, 12:42:09 PM
The problem with Sanders/Corbyn style bribe policies isn't that they can't win elections, but that many countries have already tried them and had to reform them 20-30 years later. It's weird some people want to ignore that history.
On the other hand the Tories stand for mean-spirited austerity, which has also not really been successful anywhere ever as it is hard to even define what a success of such a policy could look like.
I don't know that it's any more mean spirited than the sort of austerity Merkel has been pushing onto Europe for half a decade now; but I do think the Brits have gone down a path of questionable austerity. I mean there's decent evidence that America has had the economic success since 2008 that it has had in large part because we didn't go down the austerity path; and I'm not even really a Keynesian but I do think it's pretty obvious that you don't spur growth by taking money out of the pockets of working class families.
Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2017, 12:45:08 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 09, 2017, 12:42:09 PM
The problem with Sanders/Corbyn style bribe policies isn't that they can't win elections, but that many countries have already tried them and had to reform them 20-30 years later. It's weird some people want to ignore that history.
Many people weren't born then?
I mean I used the term history for a reason, since history is something we can learn about without directly having lived it.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 09, 2017, 01:00:37 PM
I do think it's pretty obvious that you don't spur growth by taking money out of the pockets of working class families.
What kind of a conservative are you? :blink:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 09, 2017, 01:00:37 PM
I don't know that it's any more mean spirited than the sort of austerity Merkel has been pushing onto Europe for half a decade now; but I do think the Brits have gone down a path of questionable austerity. I mean there's decent evidence that America has had the economic success since 2008 that it has had in large part because we didn't go down the austerity path; and I'm not even really a Keynesian but I do think it's pretty obvious that you don't spur growth by taking money out of the pockets of working class families.
I don't think anyone ever doubted that you can use deficit financing in the short term to achieve economic success.
The USA has a nineteen trillion dollar debt, with a national deficit of just over 500 billion dollars. Lets see how well the US does a generation from now with that kind of debt level.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 09, 2017, 01:00:37 PM
I don't know that it's any more mean spirited than the sort of austerity Merkel has been pushing onto Europe for half a decade now; but I do think the Brits have gone down a path of questionable austerity.
Yes, fairly comparable. Merkel and Schäuble could only do that, because the pain wasn't felt at home. The Tories somehow do it at home.
I'm sure this has been hashed out on Languish endlessly, but I don't think its at all accurate to try to frame brexit as a random act that the British decided upon. Its the direct result of a decades long split on Europe within the UKs Conservative party made manifest by a profoundly incompetent PM and foisted upon the country by a bizarre referendum on wether or not people like immigration. The whole shambles is entirely the conjuring of the Conservative right wing.
Quote from: Barrister on June 09, 2017, 01:10:32 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 09, 2017, 01:00:37 PM
I don't know that it's any more mean spirited than the sort of austerity Merkel has been pushing onto Europe for half a decade now; but I do think the Brits have gone down a path of questionable austerity. I mean there's decent evidence that America has had the economic success since 2008 that it has had in large part because we didn't go down the austerity path; and I'm not even really a Keynesian but I do think it's pretty obvious that you don't spur growth by taking money out of the pockets of working class families.
I don't think anyone ever doubted that you can use deficit financing in the short term to achieve economic success.
The USA has a nineteen trillion dollar debt, with a national deficit of just over 500 billion dollars. Lets see how well the US does a generation from now with that kind of debt level.
Britain doesn't seem to do much better on debt or deficit, so based on those criteria, the American Keynesian policy seems more sensible than British austerity as at least the Americans "get" something for that debt. And the issue in the US is not the level of spending but the too low revenues.
Quote from: fromtia on June 09, 2017, 01:29:01 PM
I'm sure this has been hashed out on Languish endlessly, but I don't think its at all accurate to try to frame brexit as a random act that the British decided upon. Its the direct result of a decades long split on Europe within the UKs Conservative party made manifest by a profoundly incompetent PM and foisted upon the country by a bizarre referendum on wether or not people like immigration. The whole shambles is entirely the conjuring of the Conservative right wing.
I think it is the generally accepted view that Cameron put party before country and lost his gamble.
Live to win, dare to fail.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 09, 2017, 12:42:09 PM
The problem with Sanders/Corbyn style bribe policies isn't that they can't win elections, but that many countries have already tried them and had to reform them 20-30 years later. It's weird some people want to ignore that history.
It's not a bribe.
It's rational thinking on what is best for the country. Many many labour voters are to be found in situations where they don't stand to get much in the way of the promised "free stuff".
That's the difference between labour and the Conservatives.
The tories think for today. How can they win the next election. How can they setup more opportunities for business to leech from the public purse.
Labour think of the bigger picture. They look to the long term. What effect is this inequality having? How does the future look if we continue on this course?
Both spectrums "bribe". Conservatives "bribe" corporations so that they get donations, and liberals "bribe" the public so they get votes. It depends one who you'd rather the government err towards, corporations or people.
Quote from: Solmyr on June 09, 2017, 01:02:46 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 09, 2017, 01:00:37 PM
I do think it's pretty obvious that you don't spur growth by taking money out of the pockets of working class families.
What kind of a conservative are you? :blink:
An American one. They don't believe in balanced budgets. Even getting close to a balanced budget just means you need to slash taxes. Got to keep that debt nice and high so you can starve the beast and screw future generations ever more decisively.
I may not be fair to Otto personally there :P
Quote from: fromtia on June 09, 2017, 01:29:01 PM
I'm sure this has been hashed out on Languish endlessly, but I don't think its at all accurate to try to frame brexit as a random act that the British decided upon. Its the direct result of a decades long split on Europe within the UKs Conservative party made manifest by a profoundly incompetent PM and foisted upon the country by a bizarre referendum on wether or not people like immigration. The whole shambles is entirely the conjuring of the Conservative right wing.
The Conservatives didn't even want it. They were just trying to find a way to stop the threat of the UKIP group so they could win one election.
Whoops.
why do UK politicians keep making bad calls. is it the polling that sucks or something?
Conventional wisdom aside, I'm not sure the Conservatives made such a bad call here. They are in a minority, but are close to a majority--just 8 seats shy. They are the largest party by a significant margin, in the first post Cameron/post Brexit election. That situation will persist for 5 years unless they decide to call for early elections.
For whatever reason this is being seen as a vindication of Corbyn. Labour just lost its 3rd straight election to a weak candidate and with incumbents that don't seem to have many successes to brag about. Long term, I don't think that is so bad for the conservatives.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 09, 2017, 02:41:25 PM
Conventional wisdom aside, I'm not sure the Conservatives made such a bad call here. They are in a minority, but are close to a majority--just 8 seats shy. They are the largest party by a significant margin, in the first post Cameron/post Brexit election. That situation will persist for 5 years unless they decide to call for early elections.
For whatever reason this is being seen as a vindication of Corbyn. Labour just lost its 3rd straight election to a weak candidate and with incumbents that don't seem to have many successes to brag about. Long term, I don't think that is so bad for the conservatives.
Their government won't last 5 years. The Conservative party is divided on hard vs soft Brexit. Without the leverage provided by a larger majority you're going to have a harder time reaching a united position and even more so since they have to cater to the DUP.
Conservatives plus DUP only are 2 over the majority line. That's razor-thin. Any two rogue MPs can threaten to bring down the government. Plus in a group of 600+ middle aged to elderly people, you never know who might get sick or be unable to perform their duties.
So a weak and vacillating politician campaigned under 'Strong and Stable' was found out by the electorate, now she's trying to foist on us the 'idea' that her presidency is the best choice for certainty, amidst the chaos she and a clique of advisers created in the first place. :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on June 09, 2017, 03:18:27 PM
Conservatives plus DUP only are 2 over the majority line. That's razor-thin. Any two rogue MPs can threaten to bring down the government. Plus in a group of 600+ middle aged to elderly people, you never know who might get sick or be unable to perform their duties.
Conservatives were only a majority of about 4 in the last parliament. You also have a bunch of other parties in parliament, which you can work with or can have members get sick. Don't you need an actual majority vote to bring down parliament?
Is it razor thin? Yes. It still seems like a better situation than the conservative - lib dem coalition of Cameron / Clegg.
Quote from: fromtia on June 09, 2017, 11:26:28 AM
Well, I thought this was all quite remarkable. Obviously any time the party of the feral rich gets a kick in the teeth, I'm always delighted but there were a couple of components to this election that I thought were particularly noteworthy. The young actually voted, that doesn't happen very often. The Labour party was able to get a strong showing (an extremely unexpected strong showing) at the polls with a manifesto that was identifiable and unapologetically left wing, rather than the Tory manifesto without the overt racism and xenophobia that we've been offered for the last 25 years or so.
The hated geography teacher and his unacceptable views from the 70's has apparently pulled off something quite confounding. what now Blairites? Double down on the hate I expect.
Yeah, super interesting that.
Also, looks like the Scottish Tories may split off from the English ones: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/09/ruth-davidson-planning-scottish-tory-breakaway-challenges-theresa/
Corbyn and the Blairites - as someone from right of Corbyn... I don't think the right of the Labour Party necessarily hate him and his views.
We all want the same thing fundamentally.
It's just slow and steady tends to be the way to get it. Corbyn seemed much too radical. Attempting to do too much at once and bound to fail.
We don't hate Marxists the way we do the right. We just think they're naive and out of touch.
Luckily the manifesto got the input of the party as a whole and was really quite nicely moderate.
Quote from: Barrister on June 09, 2017, 03:18:27 PM
Conservatives plus DUP only are 2 over the majority line. That's razor-thin. Any two rogue MPs can threaten to bring down the government. Plus in a group of 600+ middle aged to elderly people, you never know who might get sick or be unable to perform their duties.
The DUP also have a notoriously awful attendance record on average.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 09, 2017, 02:41:25 PM
Conventional wisdom aside, I'm not sure the Conservatives made such a bad call here. They are in a minority, but are close to a majority--just 8 seats shy. They are the largest party by a significant margin, in the first post Cameron/post Brexit election. That situation will persist for 5 years unless they decide to call for early elections.
For whatever reason this is being seen as a vindication of Corbyn. Labour just lost its 3rd straight election to a weak candidate and with incumbents that don't seem to have many successes to brag about. Long term, I don't think that is so bad for the conservatives.
I'm sure your point of view will be a comfort to May as she continues providing a "strong and stable government" from a minority position where she previously had a working majority.
Not election related, but very loosely Corbyn related, I'm offended by a new tube ad:
Have you been to Islington? Because you look like an angel.
Quote from: Valmy on June 09, 2017, 01:56:49 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on June 09, 2017, 01:02:46 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 09, 2017, 01:00:37 PM
I do think it's pretty obvious that you don't spur growth by taking money out of the pockets of working class families.
What kind of a conservative are you? :blink:
An American one. They don't believe in balanced budgets.
The hell we don't.
Though I've just about given up on the idea. At this point, we're just going to keep running up the national debt until the whole system collapses.
Quote from: dps on June 09, 2017, 05:25:23 PM
The hell we don't.
Though I've just about given up on the idea. At this point, we're just going to keep running up the national debt until the whole system collapses.
With interest rates this low, there's no real reason to pay down debt.
Investing in things that are good for the economy - education, health, infrastructure, etc seems pretty economically prudent at at time like this.
Quote from: dps on June 09, 2017, 05:25:23 PM
The hell we don't.
Well it is not like it is an impossible issue. Every other conservative party on the planet knows how to do it.
QuoteThough I've just about given up on the idea. At this point, we're just going to keep running up the national debt until the whole system collapses.
We did it before. We raised taxes and cut spending and somehow it was fixed. It just needed to stay fixed for a few decades. How lucky were we? Thanks to the tech boom and the free trade agreements we were able to do this while still having big economic growth.
Then the Republicans decided to fuck that when they got into power in 2000 and we have been fucked ever since. And in the last election I couldn't help but notice that massive increases to spending along with massive tax cuts was pretty much a commonality among all the platforms of the Republican candidates. The only person who actually promised something sane budget wise was Hillary. So you are certainly not alone among American Conservatives in making destruction of the country as part of the platform.
Quote from: Jacob on June 09, 2017, 05:29:20 PM
With interest rates this low, there's no real reason to pay down debt.
I am not talking about the debt I am talking about the deficit. It is slowly coming down but Trump's proposals would quickly reverse that trend. I can only hope the Republicans are not uniformly insanely suicidal.
QuoteInvesting in things that are good for the economy - education, health, infrastructure, etc seems pretty economically prudent at at time like this.
We spend money on entitlements and the military. Those other things are ripe for the cutting.
Quote from: Zanza on June 09, 2017, 12:56:16 PM
On the other hand the Tories stand for mean-spirited austerity, which has also not really been successful anywhere ever as it is hard to even define what a success of such a policy could look like.
It's very easy to define successful austerity: either avoidance of default/IMF program/EU bailout/downgrade or graduation from same.
Quote from: Valmy on June 09, 2017, 06:04:37 PM
Quote from: dps on June 09, 2017, 05:25:23 PM
The hell we don't.
Well it is not like it is an impossible issue. Every other conservative party on the planet knows how to do it.
QuoteThough I've just about given up on the idea. At this point, we're just going to keep running up the national debt until the whole system collapses.
We did it before. We raised taxes and cut spending and somehow it was fixed. It just needed to stay fixed for a few decades. How lucky were we? Thanks to the tech boom and the free trade agreements we were able to do this while still having big economic growth.
No we didn't. The Clinton administration claimed to have balanced the budget, but that was done by declaring Social Security spending "off-budget", which was bullshit.
Quote from: Jacob on June 09, 2017, 05:29:20 PM
With interest rates this low, there's no real reason to pay down debt.
Investing in things that are good for the economy - education, health, infrastructure, etc seems pretty economically prudent at at time like this.
You're thinking it would be much better to wait until interest rates rise, growth slows, and unemployment rises before reducing the debt?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 09, 2017, 07:10:35 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 09, 2017, 05:29:20 PM
With interest rates this low, there's no real reason to pay down debt.
Investing in things that are good for the economy - education, health, infrastructure, etc seems pretty economically prudent at at time like this.
You're thinking it would be much better to wait until interest rates rise, growth slows, and unemployment rises before reducing the debt?
We had this discussion before. There's always some reason it's not time to balance the budget and pay down the debt. (I don't want to wrongly accuse Jacob of doing this; I don't recall the specifics, so it might well have been different people raising different objections based on different scenarios, and Jacob may not have even posted in that thread, but
somebody always had a reason that it wasn't a good time.)
Three people have voted since the results started coming in, no wonder the Tory minority government choice is surprisingly popular. :rolleyes:
Huh.
Quote from: dps on June 09, 2017, 06:47:30 PM
No we didn't. The Clinton administration claimed to have balanced the budget, but that was done by declaring Social Security spending "off-budget", which was bullshit.
I am well aware it was bullshit. But the Republicans went ahead and acted like we had a big surplus anyway, which makes it more damning not less. And all the progress that had been made was swept away.
Quote from: mongers on June 09, 2017, 07:15:30 PM
Three people have voted since the results started coming in, no wonder the Tory minority government choice is surprisingly popular. :rolleyes:
I still haven't voted since 'total disaster' was not an option :P
Quote from: dps on June 09, 2017, 07:14:25 PM
We had this discussion before. There's always some reason it's not time to balance the budget and pay down the debt.
It's a long-term problem that will require a long-term solution. Short-term panicking is not the answer.
Funny how people refuse to address climate change because they can't wrap their heads around such a long-term concept, but the national debt always has to be dealt with nownownownow, like it's the cable bill.
Somehow I don't think Trump's budget is the first step in this longterm process :hmm:
I guess will be waiting until next week to see if this DUP-Tory government is going to be a thing?
I support Lord Buckethead.
Quote from: Valmy on June 09, 2017, 07:31:22 PM
Somehow I don't think Trump's budget is the first step in this longterm process :hmm:
It's not even been 6 months. So it still doesn't count yet.
QuoteI guess will be waiting until next week to see if this DUP-Tory government is going to be a thing?
Got my own problems. Let know what happens.
Quote from: Valmy on June 09, 2017, 07:31:22 PM
Somehow I don't think Trump's budget is the first step in this longterm process :hmm:
No, regardless of our views on budgetary matters, I don't think any of us expect anything Trump might do to be the first step in a long-term, positive plan.
Quote from: mongers on June 09, 2017, 07:15:30 PM
Three people have voted since the results started coming in, no wonder the Tory minority government choice is surprisingly popular. :rolleyes:
Make that four. :bowler:
I just voted "minority conservative government" just now :bowler:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 09, 2017, 07:10:35 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 09, 2017, 05:29:20 PM
With interest rates this low, there's no real reason to pay down debt.
Investing in things that are good for the economy - education, health, infrastructure, etc seems pretty economically prudent at at time like this.
You're thinking it would be much better to wait until interest rates rise, growth slows, and unemployment rises before reducing the debt?
I was talking about interest rates. If they rise significantly, that will tend to lower the debt via inflation given the government's advantageous position.
The debt should be paid down during good times - so a growing economy and low unemployment would tend to indicate paying down debt.
That said, I don't have a serious objection to the US gov't paying down debt now if these are "good times". I recommend raising taxes to do so and continuing to invest in future growth and the population via health care, poverty reduction, education, proper regulatory regimes, and infrastructure.
I mean, I know you won't agree with that but I don't think you'll be surprised by my position either :)
I think that an ageing population will make it very difficult to pay down debt. Apart from anything else the elderly own a lot of that debt in the form of bonds and stocks; their comfortable retirement requires that the debt exists. I also think that the desire by the elderly to lend money exerts pressure to keep interest rates low. I suppose that a lot of this money could be invested in 3rd world countries very profitably; but the risks are distasteful to the retired.
The original opinion of the DUP regarding the single market:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DB6TUQDXoAArfxn.jpg)
Quote from: Jacob on June 10, 2017, 12:18:37 AM
I was talking about interest rates. If they rise significantly, that will tend to lower the debt via inflation given the government's advantageous position.
:huh: Interest rates are typically rised to combat inflation. Quantitative easing is just an euphemism for starting inflation, but it never really took off. If the interest rates rise considerably, most government finances are toast.
It is a bit curious that Corbyn followers I've spoken to like that he talks about the right changes and wants to implement them quickly. However, when talk turns to Labour still not in charge despite how likeable he is and May is not, well you can't expect things to happen immediately.
I guess I should feel happy that the impotent political leaderships of recent years are pushing young ones to the far left instead of the far right, but I still dread the upcoming rule of Corbyn.
Really, in a modern democracy (ie not Venezuela), rule by the far left is much more preferable to rule by the far right. The left is going to spend all the money on things like health care and welfare benefits, while the right will spend it on military and police state. And the former will be much easier to get rid of than the latter if they fuck things up too much.
Quote from: Jacob on June 09, 2017, 11:48:47 PM
I just voted "minority conservative government" just now :bowler:
Yes, a number of experts on languish seem to have voted the same way in the last 36 hours. Prescient. I voted for a substantial Conservative majority a week or two ago. :wacko:
Quote from: Solmyr on June 10, 2017, 07:38:52 AM
Really, in a modern democracy (ie not Venezuela), rule by the far left is much more preferable to rule by the far right. The left is going to spend all the money on things like health care and welfare benefits, while the right will spend it on military and police state. And the former will be much easier to get rid of than the latter if they fuck things up too much.
Well, I agree on the general principle but not to the extremes. Also, I heavily disagree over ruinous welfare benefits being easier to get rid of.
Quote from: fromtia on June 10, 2017, 08:03:49 AM
Quote from: Jacob on June 09, 2017, 11:48:47 PM
I just voted "minority conservative government" just now :bowler:
Yes, a number of experts on languish seem to have voted the same way in the last 36 hours. Prescient. I voted for a substantial Conservative majority a week or two ago. :wacko:
Mongers kinda screwed the poll up by listing a bunch of numbers so it seemed pointless to make an uneducated guess.
Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2017, 08:27:41 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on June 10, 2017, 07:38:52 AM
Really, in a modern democracy (ie not Venezuela), rule by the far left is much more preferable to rule by the far right. The left is going to spend all the money on things like health care and welfare benefits, while the right will spend it on military and police state. And the former will be much easier to get rid of than the latter if they fuck things up too much.
Well, I agree on the general principle but not to the extremes. Also, I heavily disagree over ruinous welfare benefits being easier to get rid of.
I think he means that the far right will be harder to get rid of, after the aforementioned high military and police state spending.
Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2017, 08:27:41 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on June 10, 2017, 07:38:52 AM
Really, in a modern democracy (ie not Venezuela), rule by the far left is much more preferable to rule by the far right. The left is going to spend all the money on things like health care and welfare benefits, while the right will spend it on military and police state. And the former will be much easier to get rid of than the latter if they fuck things up too much.
Well, I agree on the general principle but not to the extremes. Also, I heavily disagree over ruinous welfare benefits being easier to get rid of.
Can you give me an example of a modern democracy that has been ruined specifically by welfare benefits and/or universal healthcare?
Quote from: fromtia on June 10, 2017, 08:03:49 AM
Yes, a number of experts on languish seem to have voted the same way in the last 36 hours. Prescient. I voted for a substantial Conservative majority a week or two ago. :wacko:
That's the risk you run when you commit before you have all the facts.
I'm delighted by the increased turnout and the much greater participation by the younger voters. Hopefully the lesson is learned, get out and vote it does make a difference. At the next election the parties will have to take the opinions of the young far more seriously than in recent contests.
Quote from: Solmyr on June 10, 2017, 10:49:52 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2017, 08:27:41 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on June 10, 2017, 07:38:52 AM
Really, in a modern democracy (ie not Venezuela), rule by the far left is much more preferable to rule by the far right. The left is going to spend all the money on things like health care and welfare benefits, while the right will spend it on military and police state. And the former will be much easier to get rid of than the latter if they fuck things up too much.
Well, I agree on the general principle but not to the extremes. Also, I heavily disagree over ruinous welfare benefits being easier to get rid of.
Can you give me an example of a modern democracy that has been ruined specifically by welfare benefits and/or universal healthcare?
Well, in terms of universal suffrage etc Venezuela, for example, was one.
far left experiments get voted out before they could pan out, or they reach a non-democratic nature like Venezuela, so they can be conveniently dismissed.
I guess the UK before Thatcher is a good candidate. :P First western power having to resort to IMF loans to stay afloat.
So, May just basically looks like a fool and out of touch after this. I'm gathering?
Quote from: 11B4V on June 10, 2017, 12:17:56 PM
So, May just basically looks like a fool and out of touch after this. I'm gathering?
That's putting it kindly. The fun has only just started though as she has now climbed into bed with a fringe political party whose main policy plank is hating Catholics. *puts huge bag of popcorn in microwave*
Quote from: Solmyr on June 10, 2017, 10:49:52 AM
Can you give me an example of a modern democracy that has been ruined specifically by welfare benefits and/or universal healthcare?
Benghazi! Clinton! Muslamofascists! politically correct liberals! supply side economics!
Am I doing this right? I'm out of practice.
Quote from: Barrister on June 09, 2017, 01:10:32 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 09, 2017, 01:00:37 PM
I don't know that it's any more mean spirited than the sort of austerity Merkel has been pushing onto Europe for half a decade now; but I do think the Brits have gone down a path of questionable austerity. I mean there's decent evidence that America has had the economic success since 2008 that it has had in large part because we didn't go down the austerity path; and I'm not even really a Keynesian but I do think it's pretty obvious that you don't spur growth by taking money out of the pockets of working class families.
I don't think anyone ever doubted that you can use deficit financing in the short term to achieve economic success.
The USA has a nineteen trillion dollar debt, with a national deficit of just over 500 billion dollars. Lets see how well the US does a generation from now with that kind of debt level.
Sure, unsustainable debt as a portion of GDP is bad for long term growth. The U.S. hit > 80% in 2009, in a circumstance where I consider that an appropriate action. Where we've gone bad is we crept up to >100% and have stayed there for several years, largely because Congress and the executive have never been able to agree on any sort of reasonable tax increase.
I mean I don't think I of all people need to sell my conservative credentials, but I think faced with the set of situations we have had the last 8 years the reasonable approach would have been to do the sort of stimulative spending we did in 2008-2010, then start to dial it back (we basically did this to a degree--after the sequester discretionary spending really hasn't been out of hand in my opinion), but at the same time we needed to levy reasonably higher taxes on the very wealthy. I think there's several reasonable proposals politicians have made:
1. Capping total deductions at some relatively high (for normal earners) level, like $50,000.
2. "The Buffet" rule, which taxes all income, regardless of source, over $1,000,000 AGI/yr at the top marginal tax rate (which would be in the 40% range.)
3. Higher-tax brackets for the ultra-rich (i.e. a new bracket that starts t like $10,000,000 AGI etc.)
I mean I don't ever want us back to the era when the highest bracket was 90%, but I mean I think it takes a special kind of supply-side imbecile to think it makes sense for the ultra-wealthy to be able to shield the vast majority of their income not only from the top tax rate, but from the next one down, at 15% tax rate many of the wealthiest Americans are paying a rate that is pretty similar to the rates a middle income person would pay. There's tons of evidence we could've actually had the stimulative spending we had, but kept debt to GDP under control while we did so if we had been able to correct some of the long-run stupidity we've been peddling about why rich people need to pay a very small percentage tax burden.
I think extremely high rates do, actually suppress revenues and hurt economic growth, lead to capital flight etc. Stuff like Hollande's 75% tax rate for the ultra wealthy or the crazy Swedish taxes that sometimes went over 100% are absurd. The very richest Americans
actually paying like 40-45% of their income in tax, is pretty damn reasonable.
Long term I'm a lot more concerned about our absolute unwillingness to reform the big entitlement programs (which is the big growth element in our current Federal spending), than I am the current debt to GDP ratio, though. No matter how rosy our debt picture right now, we don't do something about those entitlement programs we're going to be in trouble. We've realized this before and made changes, but we've been refusing to do so now for a very long time.
Quote from: Tyr on June 09, 2017, 01:52:10 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 09, 2017, 12:42:09 PM
The problem with Sanders/Corbyn style bribe policies isn't that they can't win elections, but that many countries have already tried them and had to reform them 20-30 years later. It's weird some people want to ignore that history.
It's not a bribe.
It's rational thinking on what is best for the country. Many many labour voters are to be found in situations where they don't stand to get much in the way of the promised "free stuff".
That's the difference between labour and the Conservatives.
The tories think for today. How can they win the next election. How can they setup more opportunities for business to leech from the public purse.
Labour think of the bigger picture. They look to the long term. What effect is this inequality having? How does the future look if we continue on this course?
It is a bribe when you're telling people they shouldn't have to make say, minor tuition payments (I find Britain's super reasonable), or alluding to renationalizing things and etc. Those are indeed a form of bribe, and are bad policy.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 10, 2017, 12:41:24 PM
It is a bribe when you're telling people they shouldn't have to make say, minor tuition payments (I find Britain's super reasonable), or alluding to renationalizing things and etc. Those are indeed a form of bribe, and are bad policy.
Britain, minor tuition payments? What?
I see no scenario in which restricting access to healthcare and education based on ability to pay is a good thing.
Quote from: Solmyr on June 10, 2017, 01:41:30 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 10, 2017, 12:41:24 PM
It is a bribe when you're telling people they shouldn't have to make say, minor tuition payments (I find Britain's super reasonable), or alluding to renationalizing things and etc. Those are indeed a form of bribe, and are bad policy.
Britain, minor tuition payments? What?
I see no scenario in which restricting access to healthcare and education based on ability to pay is a good thing.
Here is a page explaining tuition fee and maintenance fee loan repayments -
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/students/student-loans-tuition-fees-changes
And while higher education applications did fall last year - it did not fall among the age 18 age group despite this group being 1% smaller than the previous year (which actually means a higher proportion of this group applied.)
https://www.ucas.com/corporate/news-and-key-documents/news/applicants-uk-higher-education-down-5-uk-students-and-7-eu-students
Caught up with a Northern Irish friend today.
Interesting point re the ConDups ; this could be a breach of the Good Friday Agreement where the UK government guaranties neutrality.
Shame there's no Northern Irish opposition to raise this.
Bloody Sinn Fein.
Quote from: Tyr on June 11, 2017, 12:57:24 AM
Caught up with a Northern Irish friend today.
Interesting point re the ConDups ; this could be a breach of the Good Friday Agreement where the UK government guaranties neutrality.
Shame there's no Northern Irish opposition to raise this.
Bloody Sinn Fein.
I heard the same on NPR - they had interviewed a professor from the University of Cardiff who said much the same thing.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 10, 2017, 12:41:24 PM
Quote from: Tyr on June 09, 2017, 01:52:10 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 09, 2017, 12:42:09 PM
The problem with Sanders/Corbyn style bribe policies isn't that they can't win elections, but that many countries have already tried them and had to reform them 20-30 years later. It's weird some people want to ignore that history.
It's not a bribe.
It's rational thinking on what is best for the country. Many many labour voters are to be found in situations where they don't stand to get much in the way of the promised "free stuff".
That's the difference between labour and the Conservatives.
The tories think for today. How can they win the next election. How can they setup more opportunities for business to leech from the public purse.
Labour think of the bigger picture. They look to the long term. What effect is this inequality having? How does the future look if we continue on this course?
It is a bribe when you're telling people they shouldn't have to make say, minor tuition payments (I find Britain's super reasonable), or alluding to renationalizing things and etc. Those are indeed a form of bribe, and are bad policy.
You've missed what I wrote.
Labour's manifesto promised to make very sensible investments in the future of the country such as nationalising the railways and reducing tuition fees.
The people who stand to benefit most from all this extra "free stuff", as the right likes to put it, are the very poor....
Yet all signs suggest in the collection the poor and ignorant increasingly tend towards voting for Conservative flag waving over the party that wants to make their lives better.
The young voted labour which you might think is down to bribing them with reduced tuition.... but this is irrelevant to most young voters, it won't affect us, it's our successors that we're thinking about.
Do you really think Kensington, one of the richest parts of the world, flipped to Labour because they were bribed?
Now we're calling nationalizations "investments" too? Is there any kind of public spending that isn't an "investment?"
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 11, 2017, 02:24:24 AM
Now we're calling nationalizations "investments" too? Is there any kind of public spending that isn't an "investment?"
Taxpayers paying for Tyr's stuff: investment.
QuoteTaxpayers paying for Tyr's stuff: investment.
We already pay for stuff.
A decent chunk of what we pay for we don't get however, it is instead siphoned off to private companies profit reports and foreign governments.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 11, 2017, 02:24:24 AM
Now we're calling nationalizations "investments" too? Is there any kind of public spending that isn't an "investment?"
:mellow:
As opposed to selling off government property to private companies for some quick cash?
Yes.
Quote from: Tyr on June 11, 2017, 02:41:05 AM
A decent chunk of what we pay for we don't get however, it is instead siphoned off to private companies profit reports and foreign governments.
wut?
Quote:mellow:
As opposed to selling off government property to private companies for some quick cash?
Yes.
Your argument for why nationalization be described as an "investment" is that when they were privatized, the government made some money? I don't follow your logic.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 11, 2017, 02:53:47 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 11, 2017, 02:41:05 AM
A decent chunk of what we pay for we don't get however, it is instead siphoned off to private companies profit reports and foreign governments.
wut?
Quote:mellow:
As opposed to selling off government property to private companies for some quick cash?
Yes.
Your argument for why nationalization be described as an "investment" is that when they were privatized, the government made some money? I don't follow your logic.
It's pretty simple logic.
Invest money into improving services in the long term vs. making a quick short term profit off them and putting them in the hands of a body whose primary motivation is profit not service.
Also not sure what you don't get in the first part.
This is well known stuff.
The government still spends a significant amount on rail subsidies yet:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/08/18/foreign-state-owned-railway-british-train-companies-revenue_n_8003970.html
Not that there's any point in trying to convince you, but what you forget is that a publicly owned service is also run by the same human beings as private ones, with the same motivations. Except, the concentration on short term personal benefits instead of concerns for long term suitability are far more prominent. Why? Because a publicly owned service have no upper limit to the costs it is able to bear, and it faces no possible competition to be worried about efficiency, or level of service.
Quote from: Tamas on June 11, 2017, 04:24:49 AM
Not that there's any point in trying to convince you, but what you forget is that a publicly owned service is also run by the same human beings as private ones, with the same motivations. Except, the concentration on short term personal benefits instead of concerns for long term suitability are far more prominent. Why? Because a publicly owned service have no upper limit to the costs it is able to bear, and it faces no possible competition to be worried about efficiency, or level of service.
I'm tempted to let my mother who works in a school answer this one....
State owned bodies have budgets to deal with too. There's not somehow an unlimited pot of money just because they're working directly for the government rather than having to deal with a middle man trying to skim off as much as he can.
The competition argument is utter bullshit.
I need to take a train from Newcastle to Carlisle; there's only one sensible line to go on, where the trains are operated by a single franchise. Where's the competition? There's only a few rail routes in the world these days where you have real competition.
When dealing with core infrastructure like this privatisation is just ideologically driven idiocy.
Quote from: Tyr on June 11, 2017, 04:34:15 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 11, 2017, 04:24:49 AM
Not that there's any point in trying to convince you, but what you forget is that a publicly owned service is also run by the same human beings as private ones, with the same motivations. Except, the concentration on short term personal benefits instead of concerns for long term suitability are far more prominent. Why? Because a publicly owned service have no upper limit to the costs it is able to bear, and it faces no possible competition to be worried about efficiency, or level of service.
I'm tempted to let my mother who works in a school answer this one....
State owned bodies have budgets to deal with too. There's not somehow an unlimited pot of money just because they're working directly for the government rather than having to deal with a middle man trying to skim off as much as he can.
The competition argument is utter bullshit.
I need to take a train from Newcastle to Carlisle; there's only one sensible line to go on, where the trains are operated by a single franchise. Where's the competition? There's only a few rail routes in the world these days where you have real competition.
When dealing with core infrastructure like this privatisation is just ideologically driven idiocy.
I am tempted to let my half a lifetime personal experience using state-owned services answer this one, but it would be just dismissed as inefficiency of untermensch so I won't
Quote from: Tyr on June 11, 2017, 12:57:24 AM
Caught up with a Northern Irish friend today.
Interesting point re the ConDups ; this could be a breach of the Good Friday Agreement where the UK government guaranties neutrality.
Shame there's no Northern Irish opposition to raise this.
Bloody Sinn Fein.
Sinn Fein did raise it just after it was announced.
Quote from: Tamas on June 11, 2017, 04:59:04 AM
I am tempted to let my half a lifetime personal experience using state-owned services answer this one, but it would be just dismissed as inefficiency of untermensch so I won't
If we end up meeting some time, remind me to tell you a few first-hand stories about how publicly traded multinationals actually work.
Quote from: mongers on June 08, 2017, 12:42:26 PM
OK can we stop voting now, I note 26 have proffered an opinion and someone else has posted in the 80-100, but no one over 100+.
So safe to say I'm the extreme outlier having gone for a 98 seat Tory majority. :hmm:
I think part of my 'reasoning' is I'm a pessimist and a May landslide would be the worse outcome for the country.
But I also think the campaign on the ground has been limited and lacklustre, much of the cut and thrust, especially among the young has moved on line. Where I think the Tory e-campaign will far overshadow the efforts of Labour and Lib Dems.
I suspect a lot of experience will have been drawn from Trump's tightly focused campaign and there'll have been a fair bit of flow across the Atlantic, both in terms of methodologies, intelligence and grey money to push the Tories on-line.
Plus the pensioners and 50+ groups will turn out in droves for May, of whom the 'Strong and Stable' bullshit will have registered despite the naysayers.
No idea of the electoral map or particular numbers, but my wild guesses are as follows:
Tories gain 6-12 seats in Scotland.
Labour won't do so well as Tories, gaining maybe up to 10 seats.
SNP tacking during the election will ensure they'll loose 20 at most.
Labour are bound to loose plenty of seats in the Midlands and North as the Tories mop up UKIP voters.
Lib Dems gain no more than a dozen seats.
So overall:
Labour just below 200 seats say 198, worse than Michael Foot's 83 result.
SNP - 40 seats
Lib-Dems - 18 seats
Greens - 2 seats
Others - 22 seats
Thus the Tories get 378 seats. <_<
What a prat. :cool:
Quote from: Iormlund on June 11, 2017, 07:13:20 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 11, 2017, 04:59:04 AM
I am tempted to let my half a lifetime personal experience using state-owned services answer this one, but it would be just dismissed as inefficiency of untermensch so I won't
If we end up meeting some time, remind me to tell you a few first-hand stories about how publicly traded multinationals actually work.
Surely my opposition to state owned enterprise can be argued against on better grounds than pretending it's an uncritical endorsement of the perfection that is corporate culture and behaviour. Arguing that one solution is clearly preferable, does not mean the uncritical praise of the other one.
Quote from: Tyr on June 11, 2017, 04:02:04 AM
It's pretty simple logic.
Invest money into improving services in the long term vs. making a quick short term profit off them and putting them in the hands of a body whose primary motivation is profit not service.
A few things I'm still not clear on.
Do you mean that once nationalized, the public authority will naturally invest in improving service, so that it is not the nationalization per se that is investment, but that investment will inevitably follow?
Do you mean that service will inevitably improve once the profit motive is removed, so that our quality of life would be better all around if everything were nationalized, or is that only true in certain cases?
Quote from: Tyr on June 11, 2017, 04:02:04 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 11, 2017, 02:53:47 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 11, 2017, 02:41:05 AM
A decent chunk of what we pay for we don't get however, it is instead siphoned off to private companies profit reports and foreign governments.
wut?
Quote:mellow:
As opposed to selling off government property to private companies for some quick cash?
Yes.
Your argument for why nationalization be described as an "investment" is that when they were privatized, the government made some money? I don't follow your logic.
It's pretty simple logic.
Invest money into improving services in the long term vs. making a quick short term profit off them and putting them in the hands of a body whose primary motivation is profit not service.
I'm thinking you don't have much experience with belgian state-owned railwaycompany... :p
Quote from: Tamas on June 11, 2017, 04:59:04 AMI am tempted to let my half a lifetime personal experience using state-owned services answer this one, but it would be just dismissed as inefficiency of untermensch so I won't
Good idea, since state owned companies can and do perform quite well.
DSB - the Danish national railways - have been providing excellent rail service in Denmark for quite a long time. Statoil, the Norwegian oil company owned 67% by the Norwegian state is one of the major reasons Norway as a country is so strong economically (with real benefits to the the Norwegian population) rather than creating a few more oil billionaires.
Quote from: Jacob on June 11, 2017, 04:42:30 PM
Statoil, the Norwegian oil company owned 67% by the Norwegian state is one of the major reasons Norway as a country is so strong economically (with real benefits to the the Norwegian population) rather than creating a few more oil billionaires.
This whole time I figured it might have something to do with finding oil in Norway.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 11, 2017, 05:02:00 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 11, 2017, 04:42:30 PM
Statoil, the Norwegian oil company owned 67% by the Norwegian state is one of the major reasons Norway as a country is so strong economically (with real benefits to the the Norwegian population) rather than creating a few more oil billionaires.
This whole time I figured it might have something to do with finding oil in Norway.
It does. You are ignoring the rest of the story - unlike the UK, Romania, et al - when the oil runs out, Norway has a sovereign wealth fund that will continue to provide benefits to the nation - instead of pissing it all away and having nothing much to show for it.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on June 11, 2017, 05:52:27 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 11, 2017, 05:02:00 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 11, 2017, 04:42:30 PM
Statoil, the Norwegian oil company owned 67% by the Norwegian state is one of the major reasons Norway as a country is so strong economically (with real benefits to the the Norwegian population) rather than creating a few more oil billionaires.
This whole time I figured it might have something to do with finding oil in Norway.
It does. You are ignoring the rest of the story - unlike the UK, Romania, et al - when the oil runs out, Norway has a sovereign wealth fund that will continue to provide benefits to the nation - instead of pissing it all away and having nothing much to show for it.
On what basis did you deduce based on my response to Jacob's comment that "the Norwegian oil company owned 67% by the Norwegian state is one of the major reasons Norway as a country is so strong economically" that I was ignoring the existence of Norway's sovereign wealth fund?
According to George Osborne she's a "dead woman walking" not long now on death row. :hmm:
QuoteIan Pithers
@Ipeetea
Replying to @RobDotHutton
Looks like we'll be sending Brussels the Conservative and Unionist Negotiating Team. I hope they can come up with a handy acronym.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 11, 2017, 05:02:00 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 11, 2017, 04:42:30 PM
Statoil, the Norwegian oil company owned 67% by the Norwegian state is one of the major reasons Norway as a country is so strong economically (with real benefits to the the Norwegian population) rather than creating a few more oil billionaires.
This whole time I figured it might have something to do with finding oil in Norway.
The point is that the oil wealth is competently administered for the benefit of the nation by a state owned company, counter to Tamas' assertion that state owned = kleptocratic and inefficient.
And Norway as a state - and thus Norwegian citizens - have benefitted significantly more than citizens of many other oil producing countries (where the beneficiaries are mostly private interests).
Quote from: Jacob on June 11, 2017, 08:52:30 PM
The point is that the oil wealth is competently administered for the benefit of the nation by a state owned company, counter to Tamas' assertion that state owned = kleptocratic and inefficient.
And Norway as a state - and thus Norwegian citizens - have benefitted significantly more than citizens of many other oil producing countries (where the beneficiaries are mostly private interests).
All states charge royalties for resource extraction. Norway is no different in that regard. The fact that the extraction is performed in Norway by a state-owned company has nothing to do with the royalties charged or with the use to which those royalties are put.
So basically, socialism is a great idea, as long as the country in question 1. finds a source of natural resource that has an absolutely massive value compared to the number of population. 2. has enough social cohesion and cultural history of shared ownership to avoid the whole project just falling apart 3. avoid the mistakes of Venezuela, 4. avoids the mistakes of Saud Arabia or Iran. 4. manages to save enough of the income from the natural resource that interests on it will keep the welfare state going strong once the resource runs out.
Sound easy enough. Let's nationalise the shit out of everything!
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 11, 2017, 03:14:22 PM
I'm thinking you don't have much experience with belgian state-owned railwaycompany... :p
When I visited they seemed quite good. Not the best, but certainly better than the British mess.
Even classical economics (e.g. John Stuart Mill) sees a role of the state in the economy to prevent natural monopolies and counteract the tragedy of the commons. So the question is just which economic activities should be organised by the state and which by private actors. As there is no clear-cut criterion, the question whether e.g. railways are better operated in a more or less tightly regulated private form or in a state-organized form is a political question that depends on your own preferences.
Quote from: Tyr on June 12, 2017, 01:07:26 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 11, 2017, 03:14:22 PM
I'm thinking you don't have much experience with belgian state-owned railwaycompany... :p
When I visited they seemed quite good. Not the best, but certainly better than the British mess.
I know we discussed this before, and I'll take your word for how horrible the British train service is outside of the London area, but over here, it is generally excellent (when not disabled by industrial action for guards not wanting to relinquish pushing a button). Sure there are delays a times but have you actually stopped to consider the insane amount of trains going about? The coaches are almost always clean etc
The train service was rundown and terrible in the 1970s. But that is so long ago now that I'm not sure that helps us with the public vs. private debate.
There was some talk about (if Labour got in) the state taking over franchises as they expired. If that was the case then there would be a chance to compare state ownership with private ownership on a level playing field. The profits made by the private rail companies are not that high. My big concern with state ownership is cost control; it seems to be a fundamental part of human nature not to worry too much about costs when someone else (especially a remote entity) is footing the bill.
I would also add that, because train services are so political, there may be pressure on private operators not to make too much profit; in which case they could be getting slack about costs too.
Maintaining the rail network and train stations seems a clear-cut natural monopoly. You can't build a competing train network and investing into this kind of infrastructure is also something that I see as a public good. So this should be state-run.
Actually running the trains seems to be something that should be left to private actors and open to competition. It needs tight regulation for timeslots and using tracks though.
Spanish rail system was split into a state-run company that builds and maintains the infrastructure, and another company (still state-owned) that actually runs the trains, with a view to privatise train operation some point in the future.
However, I can't see it. The train company (RENFE) has now become profitable, but mass transit is a money pit, while long distance trains make money. If we privatise the company, and good old "market discipline" gets applied to mass-transit to make it less of a drag, it will be a disaster for mobility in Spain's cities. I see a good case there for the state retaining control and running it at a deficit. I guess we could just privatise long distance trains - but building up those has been one of Spain's largest (and slightly controversial) infrastructure investments of the past 10 years, and handing the service to private actors would be politically poisonous.
To be fair, both models can be done right and wrong.
However, when the trains are run privately, the state is in the role of regulator (in part due to deciding who gets which concession), and the only danger is how effectively the private actors can bribe the regulator into accepting sub-standard deals. There is a practical limit tot hat (especially in a developed country), so there is an incentive for the private owners to keep at least a semblance of efficiency AND quality, as they will have to convincingly argue that they have the best offer, while they bribe the decision makers in the background.
When you have state-run trains, there are no such concerns. Trying to enforce efficiency, from your workforce, has all the risks (of trying to tackle the strong union of an essential service) and no benefits, since there is no actor in the system, who gets a financial incentive to save money and/or increase quality of service, because the service will not be let to fail, and there is no competitor to raise his hand and try to take your concession away.
People talk about mass transit, but what about the constant push by the right to privatize things like health care, which basically has no business being run for profit?
Quote from: Solmyr on June 12, 2017, 05:23:47 AM
People talk about mass transit, but what about the constant push by the right to privatize things like health care, which basically has no business being run for profit?
Why is food production run for profit? Surely that is even more critical to survival than health care. Yet we don't mind people earning a profit from selling food.
Quote from: Tamas on June 12, 2017, 05:39:47 AM
Why is food production run for profit? Surely that is even more critical to survival than health care. Yet we don't mind people earning a profit from selling food.
Because the buyer in food is pretty well-informed about both food needs and about the quality/price tradeoff in buying food. There's no such informed consumer for health care.
Quote from: Tamas on June 12, 2017, 04:47:11 AM
To be fair, both models can be done right and wrong.
However, when the trains are run privately, the state is in the role of regulator (in part due to deciding who gets which concession), and the only danger is how effectively the private actors can bribe the regulator into accepting sub-standard deals. There is a practical limit tot hat (especially in a developed country), so there is an incentive for the private owners to keep at least a semblance of efficiency AND quality, as they will have to convincingly argue that they have the best offer, while they bribe the decision makers in the background.
When you have state-run trains, there are no such concerns. Trying to enforce efficiency, from your workforce, has all the risks (of trying to tackle the strong union of an essential service) and no benefits, since there is no actor in the system, who gets a financial incentive to save money and/or increase quality of service, because the service will not be let to fail, and there is no competitor to raise his hand and try to take your concession away.
Yeah, I think that in the case of British trains, it is a bit of a mistake to focus on re-nationalising the train services which will thus make them better. I think there needs to be actually focus on why the government doesn't give two fucks about the state of the train services. That isn't going to miraculously change if they are state run.
The only example I can think of a privatised system working well is in Japan, which isn't really something that can be copied elsewhere as it rests on the original railway companies still being in existence with large land holdings...
And these companies operating in certain areas is linked with the formerly nationalised now quasi privatised JR that provide essential services around the country.
If you want to argue the British rail system should never have been nationalised in the first place then that is a valid view to have.
But the re privatisation has just been a disaster.
Where's the idea there is no competition for state enterprises from?
This is grossly untrue. Even within private organisations you get competition.
Do your job right or be replaced applies no matter who your employer is.
Quote from: Tamas on June 12, 2017, 03:36:40 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 12, 2017, 01:07:26 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 11, 2017, 03:14:22 PM
I'm thinking you don't have much experience with belgian state-owned railwaycompany... :p
When I visited they seemed quite good. Not the best, but certainly better than the British mess.
I know we discussed this before, and I'll take your word for how horrible the British train service is outside of the London area, but over here, it is generally excellent (when not disabled by industrial action for guards not wanting to relinquish pushing a button). Sure there are delays a times but have you actually stopped to consider the insane amount of trains going about? The coaches are almost always clean etc
... Haven't you just basically said nationalised rail services are better than private ones there?
London is a model for what I'd like to see done elsewhere in the country.
The train services around and into London are private ones. :huh:
Privatized prisons have been a big success. More people than ever are using them!
Quote from: Razgovory on June 12, 2017, 06:49:36 AM
Privatized prisons have been a big success. More people than ever are using them!
:lol:
Quote from: mongers on June 12, 2017, 07:12:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 12, 2017, 06:49:36 AM
Privatized prisons have been a big success. More people than ever are using them!
:lol:
DWM laughing at a Raz joke. Peak Languish?
Queen's Speech delayed as talks between DUP and the Tories are yet to be concluded
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40243782
Quote
One of the reasons for the delay is also believed to be because the speech has to be written on goat's skin parchment paper, which takes a few days to dry - and the Tory negotiations with the DUP mean it cannot be ready in time.
:lol: :bowler:
Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2017, 07:34:16 AM
Quote from: mongers on June 12, 2017, 07:12:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 12, 2017, 06:49:36 AM
Privatized prisons have been a big success. More people than ever are using them!
:lol:
DWM laughing at a Raz joke. Peak Languish?
Something something Seedy's basement.
Quote from: celedhring on June 12, 2017, 07:43:20 AM
Queen's Speech delayed as talks between DUP and the Tories are yet to be concluded
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40243782
Quote
One of the reasons for the delay is also believed to be because the speech has to be written on goat's skin parchment paper, which takes a few days to dry - and the Tory negotiations with the DUP mean it cannot be ready in time.
:lol: :bowler:
Actually BBC has already confirmed that goat skin no longer involved.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22449210
Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2017, 08:00:30 AM
Actually BBC has already confirmed that goat skin no longer involved.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22449210
Interesting. The BBC's political analyst this morning on The world said that the speech was on goatskin and thus was delayed while it dried. Goatskin hasn't contained actual goat for many years, but the name has been retained. It is very long-lasting paper.
I know this looks like more wacky British conservatism but there are sound reasons to store the laws on vellum :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35569281
Though I'm not sure the Palace of Westminster is the most secure place for them :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 11, 2017, 09:16:02 PM
All states charge royalties for resource extraction. Norway is no different in that regard. The fact that the extraction is performed in Norway by a state-owned company has nothing to do with the royalties charged or with the use to which those royalties are put.
Statoil is not a "royalty extraction" organ. They're a fully integrated multinational oil corporation with operations in 36 countries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statoil), and was built into such on the foundation of a nationally owned oil company.
Quote from: Tamas on June 12, 2017, 12:24:01 AM
So basically, socialism is a great idea, as long as the country in question 1. finds a source of natural resource that has an absolutely massive value compared to the number of population. 2. has enough social cohesion and cultural history of shared ownership to avoid the whole project just falling apart 3. avoid the mistakes of Venezuela, 4. avoids the mistakes of Saud Arabia or Iran. 4. manages to save enough of the income from the natural resource that interests on it will keep the welfare state going strong once the resource runs out.
Sound easy enough. Let's nationalise the shit out of everything!
If you say so Tamas.
The point remains that nationalization does not inherently produce bad outcomes. The tolerance of kleptocratic corruption does, whether it's kleptocrats nationalizing private resources or kleptocrats privatizing national resources.
Quote from: Jacob on June 12, 2017, 11:46:39 AM
The point remains that nationalization does not inherently produce bad outcomes. The tolerance of kleptocratic corruption does, whether it's kleptocrats nationalizing private resources or kleptocrats privatizing national resources.
Yes, I agree. My view is simply that private ownership of such services with state oversight (like how the UK train system is supposed to work on paper at least), runs a significantly smaller risk of a corrupt and inefficient system.
Quote from: Tamas on June 12, 2017, 06:40:50 AM
The train services around and into London are private ones. :huh:
The ones that are widely regarded as being good are ran by TFL.
Southern Rail is probably the provider I've heard the most bad things about.
Quote from: Tyr on June 12, 2017, 12:22:57 PM
Quote from: Tamas on June 12, 2017, 06:40:50 AM
The train services around and into London are private ones. :huh:
The ones that are widely regarded as being good are ran by TFL.
Southern Rail is probably the provider I've heard the most bad things about.
But then you aren't really talking trains. TfL mostly runs the underground and overground systems. There is one 'TfL Rail' but that only covers part of east London and I've never heard much of anything about it.
Quote from: Tyr on June 12, 2017, 01:07:26 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 11, 2017, 03:14:22 PM
I'm thinking you don't have much experience with belgian state-owned railwaycompany... :p
When I visited they seemed quite good. Not the best, but certainly better than the British mess.
heheheheh....
Quote from: Jacob on June 12, 2017, 11:43:15 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 11, 2017, 09:16:02 PM
All states charge royalties for resource extraction. Norway is no different in that regard. The fact that the extraction is performed in Norway by a state-owned company has nothing to do with the royalties charged or with the use to which those royalties are put.
Statoil is not a "royalty extraction" organ. They're a fully integrated multinational oil corporation with operations in 36 countries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statoil), and was built into such on the foundation of a nationally owned oil company.
I didn't say Statoil was a royalty extraction organ. There's no such thing. They're a resource extraction company.
I wish Norway would do some royal extraction.
Quote from: Admiral Yi
I didn't say Statoil was a royalty extraction organ. There's no such thing. They're a resource extraction company.
Ok.
Not sure what your point is?
Quote from: Jacob on June 12, 2017, 02:16:21 PM
Ok.
Not sure what your point is?
Tamas: state owned companies suck.
Jacob: Statoil in Norway created great wealth.
Yi: That wealth was a function of finding oil, not having it drilled by a state owned company.
Jacob: Because it was drilled by a state owned company, Norway set up a sovereign wealth fund.
Yi: those two have nothing to do with each other. Norway gets the royalties regardless of who drills it. Those royalties are what go into the fund.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 12, 2017, 02:19:42 PM
Tamas: state owned companies suck.
Jacob: Statoil in Norway created great wealth.
Yi: That wealth was a function of finding oil, not having it drilled by a state owned company.
Jacob: Because it was drilled by a state owned company, Norway set up a sovereign wealth fund.
Yi: those two have nothing to do with each other. Norway gets the royalties regardless of who drills it. Those royalties are what go into the fund.
Ah I see. I didn't make - or at least intend to make - the first point you ascribe to me. My point was "Statoil managed the resource riches well to the benefit of the nation rather than squirrelling it away to the benefit of a few oligarchs or major capitalists" rather than "Statoil created the wealth".
Quote from: Jacob on June 12, 2017, 02:48:26 PM
Ah I see. I didn't make - or at least intend to make - the first point you ascribe to me. My point was "Statoil managed the resource riches well to the benefit of the nation rather than squirrelling it away to the benefit of a few oligarchs or major capitalists" rather than "Statoil created the wealth".
You seem not to be picking up the point I've tried to make about three times. All countries that sit on oil (or any extractable resource) charge royalties to the companies that drill it and sell it. That doesn't change whether it's drilled by Statoil or Exxon-Mobil. Those royalties are what have gone into the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund. Statoil doesn't manage this fund. The existence of a Norwegian state owned oil company doesn't affect the existence of that fund. There is no relationship.
All Oil companies pay royalties, so Norway would get that anyway, but by owning the company doesn't Norway also get 67% of the profits (or dividends, or however they pay out) rather than some oligarch? isn't that the main difference that Jacob is getting at? It's a successful company paying out to the people rather that an already rich guy.
Quote from: HVC on June 12, 2017, 03:33:55 PM
All Oil companies pay royalties, so Norway would get that anyway, but by owning the company doesn't Norway also get 67% of the profits (or dividends, or however they pay out) rather than some oligarch? isn't that the main difference that Jacob is getting at? It's a successful company paying out to the people rather that an already rich guy.
Yes. That and the fact that the oil company is well managed rather than being a shower of inefficiency, as publicly owned assets are often claimed to be.
Scandinavians seem to run their programs in a technocratic way. Most of the world gets caught up in populism and patronage and seems to lose sight of the primary function of these public entities.
Scandinavians are retards compared to the Finns.
Quote from: The Brain on June 12, 2017, 05:24:24 PM
Scandinavians are retards compared to the Finns.
Hey I am sure they are they just seem to be marginally less corrupt and retarded than everybody else.
Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2017, 12:25:20 PM
Quote from: Tyr on June 12, 2017, 12:22:57 PM
Quote from: Tamas on June 12, 2017, 06:40:50 AM
The train services around and into London are private ones. :huh:
The ones that are widely regarded as being good are ran by TFL.
Southern Rail is probably the provider I've heard the most bad things about.
But then you aren't really talking trains. TfL mostly runs the underground and overground systems. There is one 'TfL Rail' but that only covers part of east London and I've never heard much of anything about it.
I can't say I've ever taken the overground but isn't the entire point of it that it's (much of) London's suburban train services brought under TFL?
TFL Rail is what they're calling the first part of Crossrail they've opened.
Well I think the discussion about predicting the results are over and it's now OffT'ed to well rehearsed private vs public ownership/operation theme, so could a mod remind me how to close the thread. And maybe some one can split off or start a thread for that idealogical discussion?
Granny.
Quote from: mongers on June 12, 2017, 05:53:05 PM
Well I think the discussion about predicting the results are over and it's now OffT'ed to well rehearsed private vs public ownership/operation theme, so could a mod remind me how to close the thread. And maybe some one can split off or start a thread for that idealogical discussion?
No it hasn't. I noticed some genius voted for "minority conservative government" yesterday. Keep the thread up its a powerful telescope into future political developments apparently.
Quote from: mongers on June 12, 2017, 05:53:05 PM
Well I think the discussion about predicting the results are over and it's now OffT'ed to well rehearsed private vs public ownership/operation theme, so could a mod remind me how to close the thread. And maybe some one can split off or start a thread for that idealogical discussion?
:lol:
This thread is running like a well-oiled machine.
You can put a time limit on how long a poll remains open, so it may be worth considering in the future?
Quote from: fromtia on June 12, 2017, 06:03:46 PM
Quote from: mongers on June 12, 2017, 05:53:05 PM
Well I think the discussion about predicting the results are over and it's now OffT'ed to well rehearsed private vs public ownership/operation theme, so could a mod remind me how to close the thread. And maybe some one can split off or start a thread for that idealogical discussion?
No it hasn't. I noticed some genius voted for "minority conservative government" yesterday. Keep the thread up its a powerful telescope into future political developments apparently.
I've locked the poll as a show of respect to mongers.
Quote from: Jacob on June 12, 2017, 06:17:09 PM
I've locked the poll as a show of respect to mongers.
No! Do not tamper with the orb of knowing!
Quote from: Jacob on June 12, 2017, 06:17:09 PM
Quote from: fromtia on June 12, 2017, 06:03:46 PM
Quote from: mongers on June 12, 2017, 05:53:05 PM
Well I think the discussion about predicting the results are over and it's now OffT'ed to well rehearsed private vs public ownership/operation theme, so could a mod remind me how to close the thread. And maybe some one can split off or start a thread for that idealogical discussion?
No it hasn't. I noticed some genius voted for "minority conservative government" yesterday. Keep the thread up its a powerful telescope into future political developments apparently.
I've locked the poll as a show of respect to mongers.
Uncuck yourself, Manlet
Quote from: Tyr on June 12, 2017, 05:35:43 PM
I can't say I've ever taken the overground but isn't the entire point of it that it's (much of) London's suburban train services brought under TFL?
I don't know. I think wiki describes it that way but given that many/most of its stops are not in suburbs (just often not in zone 1), I'm not sure that's fair. It also isn't really run like a train service but rather more like the tube and it's aboveground parts.
However, that did inspire me to check and the Overground system is actually run as a franchise! :D
Quote from: Tyr on June 12, 2017, 05:35:43 PM
TFL Rail is what they're calling the first part of Crossrail they've opened.
Apparently that part is also run as a franchise by a company based in Hong Kong. And guess what? That company will be running all of Crossrail too!
Oh and for good measure, DLR is run the same way.
Quote from: mongers on June 12, 2017, 05:53:05 PM
Well I think the discussion about predicting the results are over and it's now OffT'ed to well rehearsed private vs public ownership/operation theme, so could a mod remind me how to close the thread. And maybe some one can split off or start a thread for that idealogical discussion?
Hey have you heard of Languish? You know that place where every thread
gets derailed out grows its original purpose?
Let's get this thread back on track.
This is the second time in recent memory that a UK prime minister had gambled on an unnecessary referendum/election and lost. Perhaps they are not as smart as I thought :ph34r:
Quote from: garbon on June 13, 2017, 02:19:18 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 12, 2017, 05:35:43 PM
I can't say I've ever taken the overground but isn't the entire point of it that it's (much of) London's suburban train services brought under TFL?
I don't know. I think wiki describes it that way but given that many/most of its stops are not in suburbs (just often not in zone 1), I'm not sure that's fair. It also isn't really run like a train service but rather more like the tube and it's aboveground parts.
However, that did inspire me to check and the Overground system is actually run as a franchise! :D
Quote from: Tyr on June 12, 2017, 05:35:43 PM
TFL Rail is what they're calling the first part of Crossrail they've opened.
Apparently that part is also run as a franchise by a company based in Hong Kong. And guess what? That company will be running all of Crossrail too!
Oh and for good measure, DLR is run the same way.
I've no idea about crossrail. I hope not. I was under the impression it was pretty much to be ran like part of the underground.
On the overground acting like the tube though... That's the way good railway services operate. The UK with its idea that taking a train is a big deal like taking a plane is odd. In Japan and Switzerland trains pretty much do operate like nationwide metros.
Quote from: garbon on June 13, 2017, 02:20:27 AM
Quote from: mongers on June 12, 2017, 05:53:05 PM
Well I think the discussion about predicting the results are over and it's now OffT'ed to well rehearsed private vs public ownership/operation theme, so could a mod remind me how to close the thread. And maybe some one can split off or start a thread for that idealogical discussion?
Hey have you heard of Languish? You know that place where every thread gets derailed out grows its original purpose?
If Languish were state-owned, that would stop happening. Nationalize Languish Now!
If you haven't seen it yet. Here is a primer to the DUP
https://youtu.be/qEsFtiruIok
Quote from: Tyr on June 13, 2017, 04:48:35 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 13, 2017, 02:19:18 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 12, 2017, 05:35:43 PM
I can't say I've ever taken the overground but isn't the entire point of it that it's (much of) London's suburban train services brought under TFL?
I don't know. I think wiki describes it that way but given that many/most of its stops are not in suburbs (just often not in zone 1), I'm not sure that's fair. It also isn't really run like a train service but rather more like the tube and it's aboveground parts.
However, that did inspire me to check and the Overground system is actually run as a franchise! :D
Quote from: Tyr on June 12, 2017, 05:35:43 PM
TFL Rail is what they're calling the first part of Crossrail they've opened.
Apparently that part is also run as a franchise by a company based in Hong Kong. And guess what? That company will be running all of Crossrail too!
Oh and for good measure, DLR is run the same way.
I've no idea about crossrail. I hope not. I was under the impression it was pretty much to be ran like part of the underground.
On the overground acting like the tube though... That's the way good railway services operate. The UK with its idea that taking a train is a big deal like taking a plane is odd. In Japan and Switzerland trains pretty much do operate like nationwide metros.
German trains are pretty good and they aren't quite the same as taking a metro.
Anyway, let's not distract from the point where you noted London as how you wish trains would be run. The difference for London trains isn't that they are nationalized (as the services are indeed contracted out to private companies) but rather than TfL does a pretty decent job of regulating the services that fall under its purview.
The difference between the TfL model and the national model is accurately described here.
http://www.londonreconnections.com/2015/orange-invades-all-change-for-londons-new-overground-lines/
The model TfL opted to take for the operation of their newly acquired Franchise was different from that used by the DfT. In part this was in order to gain the greater control and synchronicity needed for the orbital. It was also, however, an attempt to try and tackle some of the perceived problems with the franchising system mentioned above – the "buck passing and quagmires" that many felt plagued the system.
The [Overground] would be operated as a "Concession" not a Franchise. Network Rail would obviously manage the infrastructure and someone else would operate the services. TfL, however, would set the fares, decide service levels, procure and manage the Rolling Stock and basically take a more "hands-on" approach to daily decision making. The concession would arguably be closer to the way in which the DLR was operated rather than a traditional franchise – not so much a case of setting boundaries and then taking a hands-off approach, as setting ongoing goals and managing their achievement.
This would limit the freedom within which the chosen operator could work, but that operator would get a rather large payoff in return – unlike with existing National Rail franchisees, Tfl would absorb the overwhelming majority of the revenue risk – up to 90% of it. This made the Operator's books much easier to manage and their profit margins clearer, a worthwhile payoff for the tighter working restrictions.
Are these traditionalist Northern Ireland types also bringing the correct goatskin when they come over?
Quote from: Eddie Teach on June 13, 2017, 03:31:34 AM
Let's get this thread back on track.
But it runs like a well-oiled machine!
Quote from: Solmyr on June 13, 2017, 09:35:04 AM
But it runs like a well-oiled machine!
That could only be possible if we allow it to be fully and robustly penetrated by markets.
Quote from: Solmyr on June 13, 2017, 09:35:04 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on June 13, 2017, 03:31:34 AM
Let's get this thread back on track.
But it runs like a well-oiled machine!
It gives stability and certainty
Quote from: fromtia on June 13, 2017, 09:40:45 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on June 13, 2017, 09:35:04 AM
But it runs like a well-oiled machine!
That could only be possible if we allow it to be fully and robustly penetrated by markets.
We have a demand for publicly owned business talk and it is being supplied. Regulation by big mod government must be resisted.
I mean I don't mind certain things being nationalized, passenger rail I think can be ran well both ways with both outcomes possible. Hong Kong's passenger rail system is famously a private company, and one of the best run in the world. America's AmTrak is a nationalized passenger rail system, and is a colossal financial and transit failure on almost every line it runs other than the Northeast corridor and maybe the line between San Diego and Los Angeles. I'm not really a major proponent one way or the other on whether passenger rail should be public or private, either way it's a natural monopoly, and government has an important oversight role. If it's nationalized, it should be ran well by the government. If it's privatized, it should be regulated well by government. If those things are done I think either scenario can work, but when you have situations like we have in the United States, where Amtrak is a government owned corporation but is basically left to be ran terribly and then Congress just writes checks to cover their operating losses (to the tune of $1.5bn a year) you get pretty bad outcomes.
I'm not sure why the Royal Mail should be renationalized as I think that's a good privatization, if anything I'd like to see the U.S. go that route with USPS, and Labour's manifesto argument that the energy industry should be nationalized is simply stupid.
Quote from: garbon on June 13, 2017, 04:52:47 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 13, 2017, 04:48:35 AM
I've no idea about crossrail. I hope not. I was under the impression it was pretty much to be ran like part of the underground.
On the overground acting like the tube though... That's the way good railway services operate. The UK with its idea that taking a train is a big deal like taking a plane is odd. In Japan and Switzerland trains pretty much do operate like nationwide metros.
German trains are pretty good and they aren't quite the same as taking a metro.
Anyway, let's not distract from the point where you noted London as how you wish trains would be run. The difference for London trains isn't that they are nationalized (as the services are indeed contracted out to private companies) but rather than TfL does a pretty decent job of regulating the services that fall under its purview.
When Try mentions "metros", he may be speaking of S-Bahn, operated by the Deutsche Bahn in Germany and CFF in Switzerland respectively, i.e railway company not rapid transit companies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-train (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-train)
QuoteThe S-train is a type of hybrid urban-suburban rail serving a metropolitan region. Some of the larger S-train systems provide service similar to rapid transit systems, while smaller ones often resemble commuter or even regional rail.
U-Bahn is the strict equivalent to metros.
S-Bahn look more like trains than city rapid transit.
Crossrail is supposed to bring the RER/S-Bahn concept to London, if that helps.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 13, 2017, 09:50:41 AM
I'm not sure why the Royal Mail should be renationalized as I think that's a good privatization, if anything I'd like to see the U.S. go that route with USPS,
Just when you lead people to believe you may have undouchebagged yourself, you redouchebag yourself.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 13, 2017, 10:01:58 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 13, 2017, 04:52:47 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 13, 2017, 04:48:35 AM
I've no idea about crossrail. I hope not. I was under the impression it was pretty much to be ran like part of the underground.
On the overground acting like the tube though... That's the way good railway services operate. The UK with its idea that taking a train is a big deal like taking a plane is odd. In Japan and Switzerland trains pretty much do operate like nationwide metros.
German trains are pretty good and they aren't quite the same as taking a metro.
Anyway, let's not distract from the point where you noted London as how you wish trains would be run. The difference for London trains isn't that they are nationalized (as the services are indeed contracted out to private companies) but rather than TfL does a pretty decent job of regulating the services that fall under its purview.
When Try mentions "metros", he may be speaking of S-Bahn, operated by the Deutsche Bahn in Germany and CFF in Switzerland respectively, i.e railway company not rapid transit companies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-train (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-train)
QuoteThe S-train is a type of hybrid urban-suburban rail serving a metropolitan region. Some of the larger S-train systems provide service similar to rapid transit systems, while smaller ones often resemble commuter or even regional rail.
U-Bahn is the strict equivalent to metros.
S-Bahn look more like trains than city rapid transit.
Crossrail is supposed to bring the RER/S-Bahn concept to London, if that helps.
Not really helpful as it is a side digression. :P
QuoteWhen Try mentions "metros", he may be speaking of S-Bahn, operated by the Deutsche Bahn in Germany and CFF in Switzerland respectively, i.e railway company not rapid transit companies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-train
Yes.
Quote from: garbon on June 13, 2017, 04:52:47 AM
German trains are pretty good and they aren't quite the same as taking a metro.
Anyway, let's not distract from the point where you noted London as how you wish trains would be run. The difference for London trains isn't that they are nationalized (as the services are indeed contracted out to private companies) but rather than TfL does a pretty decent job of regulating the services that fall under its purview.
OK, so its not 100% state ran in London.
As Gups says however they are far more nationalised than in the rest of the country.
They are also a lot better.
Nationalisation isn't the end goal in itself here. That's the stuff of doctrinal warriors. What we want is better service. And more state regulation in transport (busses aren't as sexy as trains though perhaps even worse at current) is the way to get this.
It would be nice if we had the freakin motivation/wherewithal to look at things like the USPS, Amtrak, etc....and say "how could we make this government-run entity work decently" instead of just "oh well, it sucks, privatization must be the only answer".
The US military, in purely financial terms, is a gigantic clusterfuck. We only tolerate it, because A: it's too important too neglect it, B: you cannot privatize the military, and C: see A & B.
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 13, 2017, 10:52:29 AM
It would be nice if we had the freakin motivation/wherewithal to look at things like the USPS, Amtrak, etc....and say "how could we make this government-run entity work decently" instead of just "oh well, it sucks, privatization must be the only answer".
The US military, in purely financial terms, is a gigantic clusterfuck. We only tolerate it, because A: it's too important too neglect it, B: you cannot privatize the military, and C: see A & B.
It's because for a myriad of reasons, making substantive change in how governments work is really, really hard. It's much easier to do as a private business.
The Germans national railway is organised as a private company. It'd just that 100% of its shares are owned by the federal government. They wanted to do an IPO but that never happened due to the financial crisis of 2008.
Quote from: garbon on June 13, 2017, 10:28:06 AM
Not really helpful as it is a side digression. :P
It's Languish, so WAD. :P
Amtrak has two main problems. One is that they are forced to keep sparsely used, uneconomical lines open because of Congressional pressure. If it were operating as a private company it would shut down everything outside the NE corridor. The other is that it doesn't own most (all?) of the tracks it runs on. So it's hard to upgrade to the level to reach Accela's maximum speed.
Quote from: Tyr on June 13, 2017, 10:35:20 AM
QuoteWhen Try mentions "metros", he may be speaking of S-Bahn, operated by the Deutsche Bahn in Germany and CFF in Switzerland respectively, i.e railway company not rapid transit companies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-train
Yes.
Quote from: garbon on June 13, 2017, 04:52:47 AM
German trains are pretty good and they aren't quite the same as taking a metro.
Anyway, let's not distract from the point where you noted London as how you wish trains would be run. The difference for London trains isn't that they are nationalized (as the services are indeed contracted out to private companies) but rather than TfL does a pretty decent job of regulating the services that fall under its purview.
OK, so its not 100% state ran in London.
As Gups says however they are far more nationalised than in the rest of the country.
They are also a lot better.
Nationalisation isn't the end goal in itself here. That's the stuff of doctrinal warriors. What we want is better service. And more state regulation in transport (busses aren't as sexy as trains though perhaps even worse at current) is the way to get this.
But that is what I said. Issue is really not private vs nationalised but more of how effective the government regulators actually are.
Quote from: Zanza on June 13, 2017, 11:13:19 AM
The Germans national railway is organised as a private company. It'd just that 100% of its shares are owned by the federal government. They wanted to do an IPO but that never happened due to the financial crisis of 2008.
The Province of Alberta owns its own bank - ATB Financial (formerly Alberta Treasury Branch). It's run as a Crown Corporation, is generally profitable and well regarded by its customers. It's the last vestige of the Social Credit governments that ran Alberta from the 1930s through to the 1960s.
But it was also the center of huge scandals back in the 1980s, when it would make very large loans for political purposes at the direction of government (and shockingly those loans wouldn't be repaid).
It's not that it is impossible for government to run a successful business. But the temptation is always there for governments to interfere.
Quote from: fromtia on June 13, 2017, 09:40:45 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on June 13, 2017, 09:35:04 AM
But it runs like a well-oiled machine!
That could only be possible if we allow it to be fully and robustly penetrated by markets.
It better be well oiled if it's going to be penetrated like that.
I don't get it.
Quote from: Barrister on June 13, 2017, 11:20:43 AM
Quote from: Zanza on June 13, 2017, 11:13:19 AM
The Germans national railway is organised as a private company. It'd just that 100% of its shares are owned by the federal government. They wanted to do an IPO but that never happened due to the financial crisis of 2008.
The Province of Alberta owns its own bank - ATB Financial (formerly Alberta Treasury Branch). It's run as a Crown Corporation, is generally profitable and well regarded by its customers. It's the last vestige of the Social Credit governments that ran Alberta from the 1930s through to the 1960s.
But it was also the center of huge scandals back in the 1980s, when it would make very large loans for political purposes at the direction of government (and shockingly those loans wouldn't be repaid).
It's not that it is impossible for government to run a successful business. But the temptation is always there for governments to interfere.
Germany has a rather big national bank called KfW that is a leftover of the Marshall Plan to support various government programs (e.g. I got part of my mortgage from them as my appartment is particularly energy efficient) and provide investment capital start-ups and import/export finance for foreign trade. The bank is apparently considered the safest bank in the world because the government with its AAA rating is guaranteeing its debt by statute. That bank is generally seen as a big success model (despite a rather silly money transfer to Lehman on the day of bankruptcy) .
https://www.gfmag.com/media/press-releases/The-Worlds-50-Safest-Banks-2016
I think misusing such indirect government institutions and state-owned enterprises is possible. But then countries where misusing government institutions like that are probably also those with a higher likelihood of private sector corruption...
Quote from: Tyr on June 13, 2017, 10:35:20 AM
Nationalisation isn't the end goal in itself here. That's the stuff of doctrinal warriors. What we want is better service. And more state regulation in transport (busses aren't as sexy as trains though perhaps even worse at current) is the way to get this.
Well, as someone else pointed out, trains are pretty much a natural monopoly, so having them closely regulated or even nationalized makes sense. But not all forms of transport are natural monopolies; buses certainly aren't.
And state regulation only leads to better service if providing better service is important to the regulators, and the regulators are competent.
Quote from: Zanza on June 13, 2017, 11:13:19 AM
The Germans national railway is organised as a private company. It'd just that 100% of its shares are owned by the federal government. They wanted to do an IPO but that never happened due to the financial crisis of 2008.
That's basically how Amtrak works, it's organized as a "company" that loses about $1-1.5bn/yr, and Congress writes checks for the difference every year.
Quote from: dps on June 13, 2017, 12:12:33 PM
Quote from: Tyr on June 13, 2017, 10:35:20 AM
Nationalisation isn't the end goal in itself here. That's the stuff of doctrinal warriors. What we want is better service. And more state regulation in transport (busses aren't as sexy as trains though perhaps even worse at current) is the way to get this.
Well, as someone else pointed out, trains are pretty much a natural monopoly, so having them closely regulated or even nationalized makes sense. But not all forms of transport are natural monopolies; buses certainly aren't.
And state regulation only leads to better service if providing better service is important to the regulators, and the regulators are competent.
IMO trains should be nationalised and busses regulated down from their current free for all to a situation like today's trains.
The trouble with free for all bus services is popular routes get clogged and over served, competition with rail introduced, small communities under served and a lack of integrated ticketing
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 13, 2017, 02:15:28 PM
Quote from: Zanza on June 13, 2017, 11:13:19 AM
The Germans national railway is organised as a private company. It'd just that 100% of its shares are owned by the federal government. They wanted to do an IPO but that never happened due to the financial crisis of 2008.
That's basically how Amtrak works, it's organized as a "company" that loses about $1-1.5bn/yr, and Congress writes checks for the difference every year.
Man that is nothing. Cities regularly run much bigger losses for similar projects. The New York MTA I think regularly loses that amount of money every MONTH.
I am actually impressed that Amtrak can run a nationwide rail system and only lose that amount of money considering its reputation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 13, 2017, 11:17:39 AM
Amtrak has two main problems. One is that they are forced to keep sparsely used, uneconomical lines open because of Congressional pressure. If it were operating as a private company it would shut down everything outside the NE corridor. The other is that it doesn't own most (all?) of the tracks it runs on. So it's hard to upgrade to the level to reach Accela's maximum speed.
I think the first part of those two main problems is exacerbated significantly by the second. It makes it hard to keep a decent timetable when CSX is cock-blocking your routes.
And it is also not likely a private passenger rail company (maybe if it was an arm of something like BNSF...but as well know, Amtrak exists because they all jettisoned passenger rail) would be able to make the necessary capital investments for new rail lines. Not to mention, our government(s) system, unlike most European countries, make it nearly impossible to develop a consistent rail line across multiple state boundaries. It is hard enough for Amtrak...it would be impossible for a purely private company.
The only way passenger rail could potentially make a comeback, would be to have the backing of an federal/executive push, and (to compete effectively with air travel) to be able to develop dedicated lines for super-high speed rail (maglev would be nice...hyperloop is probably too over-hyped).
Ugh public transport. I might catch a disease!
When we develop automated flying cars/pods (cause we know people already drive shitty enough...imagine them plummeting to the ground all of the time), we can ditch all of this train/bus nonsense.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 13, 2017, 06:41:36 PM
Ugh public transport. I might catch a disease!
It's for the poors.
Quote from: Tyr on June 13, 2017, 04:36:23 PM
Quote from: dps on June 13, 2017, 12:12:33 PM
Quote from: Tyr on June 13, 2017, 10:35:20 AM
Nationalisation isn't the end goal in itself here. That's the stuff of doctrinal warriors. What we want is better service. And more state regulation in transport (busses aren't as sexy as trains though perhaps even worse at current) is the way to get this.
Well, as someone else pointed out, trains are pretty much a natural monopoly, so having them closely regulated or even nationalized makes sense. But not all forms of transport are natural monopolies; buses certainly aren't.
And state regulation only leads to better service if providing better service is important to the regulators, and the regulators are competent.
IMO trains should be nationalised and busses regulated down from their current free for all to a situation like today's trains.
The trouble with free for all bus services is popular routes get clogged and over served, competition with rail introduced, small communities under served and a lack of integrated ticketing
What, exactly, is integrated ticketing and why is a lack of it a problem?
Quote from: 11B4V on June 13, 2017, 07:06:39 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 13, 2017, 06:41:36 PM
Ugh public transport. I might catch a disease!
It's for the poors.
The poor people I know take Megabus or Boltbus. Ain't got no cash for a $200 Acela Express ticket. Those trains are all full of yuppies.
Quote from: dps on June 13, 2017, 07:07:30 PM
What, exactly, is integrated ticketing and why is a lack of it a problem?
You want to go from a point in the west of town to a point in the north of town.
There is no direct bus between the two.
What you have to do is take a bus to the centre and then catch another bus to the north.
Under the current system this might require buying two separate tickets for two separate companies. It might require walking to a totally different bus station operated by the other company.
With integrated systems you generally just get your ticket that lasts for a certain amount of time/zones and off you go.
In Newcastle this is a particularly galling problem as the Metro was designed to be the centre of an integrated transport system. Many stations around the edge of the central urban area are at bus stations. The design was you'd take your bus from the rural towns to these edge stations and then jump on a metro to go to where you want to go in the centre, thus reducing traffic in the centre and avoiding duplication of routes.
...but then things were deregulated.
Work is under way to try and sort this a little it seems.
http://www.citymetric.com/transport/bus-services-bill-could-help-transform-transport-through-better-data-2595
Should Sherman had destroyed more, or less of the railroad infrastructure in the South?
Quote from: Tamas on June 14, 2017, 03:46:46 AM
Should Sherman had destroyed more, or less of the railroad infrastructure in the South?
Probably, yes.
Quote from: Tamas on June 14, 2017, 03:46:46 AM
Should Sherman had destroyed more, or less of the railroad infrastructure in the South?
Should've leveled it like Berlin and Tokyo. You don't see them up to their old tricks anymore, do you?
Quote from: Fate on June 13, 2017, 07:57:03 PM
The poor people I know take Megabus or Boltbus. Ain't got no cash for a $200 Acela Express ticket. Those trains are all full of yuppies.
Don't forget the money to catch an Uber to/from the train station or park your Prius there long-term.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 14, 2017, 11:20:36 AM
Quote from: Fate on June 13, 2017, 07:57:03 PM
The poor people I know take Megabus or Boltbus. Ain't got no cash for a $200 Acela Express ticket. Those trains are all full of yuppies.
Don't forget the money to catch an Uber to/from the train station or park your Prius there long-term.
Unnecessary when based in Manhattan. :cool:
Quote from: garbon on June 14, 2017, 11:21:48 AM
Unnecessary when based in Manhattan. :cool:
Only one end of that trip is in NYC. :contract:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 14, 2017, 11:27:40 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 14, 2017, 11:21:48 AM
Unnecessary when based in Manhattan. :cool:
Only one end of that trip is in NYC. :contract:
I took a cab in DC. Was pretty cheap and didn't so clearly support sexual harassment and discrimination.
Quote from: Tyr on June 14, 2017, 03:24:30 AM
Quote from: dps on June 13, 2017, 07:07:30 PM
What, exactly, is integrated ticketing and why is a lack of it a problem?
You want to go from a point in the west of town to a point in the north of town.
There is no direct bus between the two.
What you have to do is take a bus to the centre and then catch another bus to the north.
Under the current system this might require buying two separate tickets for two separate companies. It might require walking to a totally different bus station operated by the other company.
With integrated systems you generally just get your ticket that lasts for a certain amount of time/zones and off you go.
In Newcastle this is a particularly galling problem as the Metro was designed to be the centre of an integrated transport system. Many stations around the edge of the central urban area are at bus stations. The design was you'd take your bus from the rural towns to these edge stations and then jump on a metro to go to where you want to go in the centre, thus reducing traffic in the centre and avoiding duplication of routes.
...but then things were deregulated.
Work is under way to try and sort this a little it seems.
http://www.citymetric.com/transport/bus-services-bill-could-help-transform-transport-through-better-data-2595
Do you actually have to buy a physical ticket and then hand it to the driver? In my experience, with most local buses you just give the driver cash (and you better have exact change, 'cause they don't give change) though if you ride regularly you can get a monthly pass or the like.
Cash on buses? Sounds like 10 years ago.
Quote from: The Brain on June 14, 2017, 05:12:32 PM
Cash on buses? Sounds like 10 years ago.
Probably it's been longer than that since I took a bus. Back when we lived in Charleston, aa didn't drive, so we only had one car and I had to take the bus a couple of times when the car was in the shop. Once we moved down here, she got her driver's license, and we've had 2 cars, so we've been able to get by when one of the needs work without resorting to taking a bus. Which is a good thing, because while Charleston had pretty good bus service, the bus service here is a joke.
New Jersey transit buses accepts cash for buses inbound to NYC. But not leaving NYC.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 14, 2017, 06:01:59 PM
New Jersey transit buses accepts cash for buses inbound to NYC. But not leaving NYC.
Kurt Russell will be upset.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 14, 2017, 06:01:59 PM
New Jersey transit buses accepts cash for buses inbound to NYC. But not leaving NYC.
Isn't that a city toll thing? I seem to recall the bridges costing an mortgage payment, but just one way. Sort of a "roaches pay driving in, but they don't pay driving out" thing?
Is this the general UK thread now?
That apartment fire looked horrific. Do they have any idea what caused it?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 14, 2017, 06:46:13 PM
Is this the general UK thread now?
That apartment fire looked horrific. Do they have any idea what caused it?
A fridge apparently.
There also seems to have been a problem with the cladding.
Like many older tower blocks the building had been tarted-up with some cladding that also served as additional insulation. That cladding appears to have been at least partly flammable and may also have acted as a form of chimney, enabling the fire to spread quicker.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40283980
The federal building I work in is relatively new; I had never seen sprinkler systems running sideways along the window line, near the ceiling--apparently they're to keep these massive window panes from becoming too hot in the event of a fire, so they don't blow out and turn into chunks of razors and guillotines for first responders and evacuated people below.
Quote from: dps on June 14, 2017, 05:09:04 PM
Quote from: Tyr on June 14, 2017, 03:24:30 AM
Quote from: dps on June 13, 2017, 07:07:30 PM
What, exactly, is integrated ticketing and why is a lack of it a problem?
You want to go from a point in the west of town to a point in the north of town.
There is no direct bus between the two.
What you have to do is take a bus to the centre and then catch another bus to the north.
Under the current system this might require buying two separate tickets for two separate companies. It might require walking to a totally different bus station operated by the other company.
With integrated systems you generally just get your ticket that lasts for a certain amount of time/zones and off you go.
In Newcastle this is a particularly galling problem as the Metro was designed to be the centre of an integrated transport system. Many stations around the edge of the central urban area are at bus stations. The design was you'd take your bus from the rural towns to these edge stations and then jump on a metro to go to where you want to go in the centre, thus reducing traffic in the centre and avoiding duplication of routes.
...but then things were deregulated.
Work is under way to try and sort this a little it seems.
http://www.citymetric.com/transport/bus-services-bill-could-help-transform-transport-through-better-data-2595
Do you actually have to buy a physical ticket and then hand it to the driver? In my experience, with most local buses you just give the driver cash (and you better have exact change, 'cause they don't give change) though if you ride regularly you can get a monthly pass or the like.
Yes. Usually you pay the driver or show your pass (old people go free, one company busses monthly pass, etc...)
Which also has the effect of slowing things down.
Got this from the Independent, don't know if beliveable or not:
QuoteGrenfell Tower cladding that may have led to fire was chosen to improve appearance of Kensington block of flats
Material would help make the flats look better from outside, planners noted
The cladding that might have led to the horrifying blaze at Grenfell Tower was added partly to improve its appearance.
During a refurbishment aimed at regeneration last year, cladding was added to the sides of the building to update its look. The cladding then seems to have helped the fire spread around the building, allowing it to destroy almost the entirety of the structure and kill people inside.
And that cladding – a low-cost way of improving the front of the building – was chosen in part so that the tower would look better when seen from the conservation areas and luxury flats that surround north Kensington, according to planning documents, as well as to insulate it.
So, the flammable cladding was adding to make the block look better for the people living in the posher areas around it? :huh:
Quote from: The Larch on June 15, 2017, 06:21:31 AM
So, the flammable cladding was adding to make the block look better for the people living in the posher areas around it? :huh:
As I was telling my man Buskers just this very morn, if you can't keep the poor out of sight at least make them look presentable, what what.
Quote from: The Larch on June 15, 2017, 06:21:31 AM
Got this from the Independent, don't know if beliveable or not:
QuoteGrenfell Tower cladding that may have led to fire was chosen to improve appearance of Kensington block of flats
Material would help make the flats look better from outside, planners noted
The cladding that might have led to the horrifying blaze at Grenfell Tower was added partly to improve its appearance.
During a refurbishment aimed at regeneration last year, cladding was added to the sides of the building to update its look. The cladding then seems to have helped the fire spread around the building, allowing it to destroy almost the entirety of the structure and kill people inside.
And that cladding – a low-cost way of improving the front of the building – was chosen in part so that the tower would look better when seen from the conservation areas and luxury flats that surround north Kensington, according to planning documents, as well as to insulate it.
So, the flammable cladding was adding to make the block look better for the people living in the posher areas around it? :huh:
To me it'd seem, the part where you can really save money to steal the rest of the taxpayer's money allocated to this, is the materials and methods used in fitting the insulation. What kind of paint you put on it all surely matters little.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 15, 2017, 06:26:09 AM
Quote from: The Larch on June 15, 2017, 06:21:31 AM
So, the flammable cladding was adding to make the block look better for the people living in the posher areas around it? :huh:
As I was telling my man Buskers just this very morn, if you can't keep the poor out of sight at least make them look presentable, what what.
Buskers is your cat, right?
No, that would be Mr. Buskers.
I didn't know Great White was in London.
The fire is getting very political.
Have to wonder what effect it would have had if it were pre-election.
Big bonus for Corbyn I suspect.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 13, 2017, 11:17:39 AM
Amtrak has two main problems. One is that they are forced to keep sparsely used, uneconomical lines open because of Congressional pressure. If it were operating as a private company it would shut down everything outside the NE corridor. The other is that it doesn't own most (all?) of the tracks it runs on. So it's hard to upgrade to the level to reach Accela's maximum speed.
Amtrak owns a lot of the track in the North East Corridor. It also maintains track owned by states in some circumstance (the line that I work on, for instance, between Detroit and Chicago is owned by the State of Michigan and State of Indiana, but those states contract maintenance to Amtrak.)
Amtrak also is caught up in the politics of the transportation industry. For example, due to the political power of the class one freight carriers and their unions Amtrak is not allowed to carry any sort of freight. Historically mail carriage was the primary driver of profit in the passenger rail industry; and in almost every city the main post office is right by the train depot, but since that's freight Amtrak can't carry it. I've seen the mail facility at Union Station in Chicago; it's enormous and it's deserted.
Upgrading track to go at bullet train speeds would require an enormous public investment; especially in the North East Corridor where land is so expensive. That would put them in direct competition with airlines; another politically powerful industry so, even if there was a demand to upgrade to bullet trains, I doubt it would be done.
There would be so much less bullshit if entities like Amtrak, NASA and USPS were run like the government institutions they are supposed to be, and less like for-profit businesses. Well, perhaps not like Amtrak, but the "half and half" approach is simply a mess.a
Up to 150 feared dead in the Greenfell tower block disaster.
Some people are alleging the news is being managed, so the full death toll won't become know until weeks have passed. No sure if I believe that.
The Russians want you to believe it.
Quote from: mongers on June 15, 2017, 04:36:29 PM
Up to 150 feared dead in the Greenfell tower block disaster.
Some people are alleging the news is being managed, so the full death toll won't become know until weeks have passed. No sure if I believe that.
Sounds :tinfoil: to me.
What I cannot get over, though, is the use of cladding with flammable materials. The brutal 60's tower block was at least made of concrete, so fires were contained within each individual flat. In order to make the blocks look "pretty" it seems that we have compromised this basic safety feature. There are two tower blocks here in Preston that I see whenever I walk into town, they have also been tarted up with cladding, is it the dangerous stuff? It is certainly the case that many blocks in London have been clad with these materials; these need to be removed as soon as possible.
This article from the Spectator covers the problem quite well :
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/06/grenfell-tower-blaze-disaster-waiting-happen/
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 15, 2017, 04:55:19 PM
Quote from: mongers on June 15, 2017, 04:36:29 PM
Up to 150 feared dead in the Greenfell tower block disaster.
Some people are alleging the news is being managed, so the full death toll won't become know until weeks have passed. No sure if I believe that.
Sounds :tinfoil: to me.
What I cannot get over, though, is the use of cladding with flammable materials. The brutal 60's tower block was at least made of concrete, so fires were contained within each individual flat. In order to make the blocks look "pretty" it seems that we have compromised this basic safety feature. There are two tower blocks here in Preston that I see whenever I walk into town, they have also been tarted up with cladding, is it the dangerous stuff? It is certainly the case that many blocks in London have been clad with these materials; these need to be removed as soon as possible.
Oh I hope it is all tinfoil stuff.
On the cladding, I think the beautification angle is a bit of a red herring, it may have played a part in this refurbishment, but I think The driving force is improved insulation and saving energy.
Don't know anything about the Greenfell tower, but it's been said an addition four floors were made into flats, I'm guessing replacing the massive old boilers with a new heating system which combined with outside insulation meant it needed a much reduced output and could thus take up less space in the tower.
I lived in a block in London back in the 1980s. With only one side out of six exposed to the open air it was invariably too hot rather than cold. It did face south-east but even so; if they had installed insulative cladding on that building then I would probably have had to buy an aircon unit to chill my room :P
Hey, at least we in America are rolling back a slew of federal safety regulations so we don't ever have to worry about stuff like this happening. Because it creates jobs, not disasters.
Regulations are bad for some reason.
They kill jobs. Fires kill people, but they're not nearly as important. Particularly if they're poors. Or un-white.
Regulations create jobs tho. You need people to enforce them, sift thru them, etc.
Quote from: mongers on June 15, 2017, 04:36:29 PM
Up to 150 feared dead in the Greenfell tower block disaster.
Some people are alleging the news is being managed, so the full death toll won't become know until weeks have passed. No sure if I believe that.
150! :o
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 14, 2017, 06:19:39 PM
Isn't that a city toll thing? I seem to recall the bridges costing an mortgage payment, but just one way. Sort of a "roaches pay driving in, but they don't pay driving out" thing?
DRPA bridges are toll to leave NJ, free to enter. PANYNJ bridges are "fuck you both ways." NJ to Brooklyn and back during peak hours? $50.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 15, 2017, 08:42:58 PM
Quote from: mongers on June 15, 2017, 04:36:29 PM
Up to 150 feared dead in the Greenfell tower block disaster.
Some people are alleging the news is being managed, so the full death toll won't become know until weeks have passed. No sure if I believe that.
150! :o
I was expecting even more hearing the stories.
And there is no conspiracy here I am sure. They say it will take weeks if not months to properly go through the building, and some of the dead may never be properly identified.
I remember reading one of the survivors telling her mother that they can't leave because the fire is coming up the stairwell. I am pretty sure this would have been a major disaster either way due to the cladding and the idiotic "stay put" advice that was given to the residents, but I wonder if the floors had fire doors and if people bothered to actually keep them closed. In our building (just 2 floors luckily!) ours was regularly left open, I guess in a meaningless attempt to make the common area on the level less warm on warm days.
Nobody is leaving it open since this fire, though. :P
Independent says it would have cost £5000 extra to buy fire resistant cladding.
If true..
Jesus. Someone really needs to go to jail for this one.
Also: this is council housing, so this is the poorest strata. I don't think I have seen more than a couple of English last names among the survivors interviewed, or the missing/victims. Do you think it is a general picture for London that the "lower class" is almost exclusively of immigrants/their offspring, or it's just a coincidence of the neighbourhood?
It is early days but it looks like it is the building regulations that are at fault; ie insufficiently stringent. Apparently the cladding used is illegal in the USA for example. Sprinkler systems have been required for new blocks for a few years but there is no requirement to retrofit them in older buildings. I did feel for a fire safety expert who was on BBC news last night; he has known about these problems for years and has been banging on about them but receiving the cold shoulder from officials and politicians.
A big concern I have about this is that it may do for high density housing what fukushima did for nuclear power. Right when things were looking to turn around and people were recognising it as the sensible way forward.
Won't help Londons housing problems....
Quote from: Tamas on June 16, 2017, 05:22:49 AM
Also: this is council housing, so this is the poorest strata. I don't think I have seen more than a couple of English last names among the survivors interviewed, or the missing/victims. Do you think it is a general picture for London that the "lower class" is almost exclusively of immigrants/their offspring, or it's just a coincidence of the neighbourhood?
Looking at the numbers 1/3 of London is foreign born and immigrants do tend to be disproportionately poorer.
Checking a map Kensington isn't too far from Wembley which I know is famous for being a heavy immigrant area.
Not so sure it'd be general for London as a whole... Don't the quite poor traditionally tend to the east and south of the river?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 16, 2017, 05:31:16 AM
It is early days but it looks like it is the building regulations that are at fault; ie insufficiently stringent. Apparently the cladding used is illegal in the USA for example. Sprinkler systems have been required for new blocks for a few years but there is no requirement to retrofit them in older buildings. I did feel for a fire safety expert who was on BBC news last night; he has known about these problems for years and has been banging on about them but receiving the cold shoulder from officials and politicians.
Illegal in Germany too. Frankfurt's fire chief ripped British regulations to shreds in an interview.
30 confirmed dead. :(
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2017/jun/16/grenfell-tower-fire-london-police-criminal-investigation-into-tragedy-latest-updates
Quote from: Tyr on June 16, 2017, 06:19:20 AM
A big concern I have about this is that it may do for high density housing what fukushima did for nuclear power. Right when things were looking to turn around and people were recognising it as the sensible way forward.
Won't help Londons housing problems....
True :( Hopefully backlash will be limited to huge towers like this one. There was a nauseating article at the Guardian from some guy who now wanted the people to rise against the bourgeois buiilding big tower blocks to be bought and left empty by foreign investors. Allegedly there is an epidemic of luxury high towers to come and they'll all be empty properties owned by the rich.
And how awesome it is to live on the ground level.
Quote from: Tamas on June 16, 2017, 06:59:21 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 16, 2017, 06:19:20 AM
A big concern I have about this is that it may do for high density housing what fukushima did for nuclear power. Right when things were looking to turn around and people were recognising it as the sensible way forward.
Won't help Londons housing problems....
True :( Hopefully backlash will be limited to huge towers like this one. There was a nauseating article at the Guardian from some guy who now wanted the people to rise against the bourgeois buiilding big tower blocks to be bought and left empty by foreign investors. Allegedly there is an epidemic of luxury high towers to come and they'll all be empty properties owned by the rich.
And how awesome it is to live on the ground level.
I read that article and only took issue with the fact that he buried deep the bit about how he was once living in one of the luxury towers.
Anyway, I say good riddance. Nothing breaks up community cohesion easier than monstrous towers. Particularly towers that don't even contain all that many units.
as slightly related, everyone is yelling at foreigners buying properties and leaving them empty driving up property prices.
I have already found that a bit of a lame "blame the foreigner" thing, seeing how I have been renting exclusively from different members of the English middle class, but due to this event I have learned that Kensington, as the borough with the most empty homes have 1.6% of them empty. SCANDALOUS!!!!
I read it too. Although Simon Jenkins is wrong about most things, he's right about this. We would be much better off getting density through 6-9 story blocks like most European cities.
And he's right that there are a huge number of massive luxury tower blocks currently and also that if recent experience is anything to go buy around 50% of them will remain empty (but that may not be true in future since stamp duty increases have significantly reduced the attractiveness of high end residential to foreign purchasers).
Quote from: Gups on June 16, 2017, 07:25:37 AM
I read it too. Although Simon Jenkins is wrong about most things, he's right about this. We would be much better off getting density through 6-9 story blocks like most European cities.
And he's right that there are a huge number of massive luxury tower blocks currently and also that if recent experience is anything to go buy around 50% of them will remain empty (but that may not be true in future since stamp duty increases have significantly reduced the attractiveness of high end residential to foreign purchasers).
As I just wrote, even in the area most heavily stricken by this phenomenom, it is less than 2% of homes. having 2% more high-end homes available for sale would barely put a dent into property prices. Blaming that instead of silly restrictions on building, is dishonest.
Quote from: Tamas on June 16, 2017, 07:24:33 AM
as slightly related, everyone is yelling at foreigners buying properties and leaving them empty driving up property prices.
I have already found that a bit of a lame "blame the foreigner" thing, seeing how I have been renting exclusively from different members of the English middle class, but due to this event I have learned that Kensington, as the borough with the most empty homes have 1.6% of them empty. SCANDALOUS!!!!
If you are living in a property it's not empty is it?
Quote from: Gups on June 16, 2017, 07:25:37 AM
I read it too. Although Simon Jenkins is wrong about most things, he's right about this. We would be much better off getting density through 6-9 story blocks like most European cities.
:yes:
Quote from: Tamas on June 16, 2017, 07:28:42 AM
Quote from: Gups on June 16, 2017, 07:25:37 AM
I read it too. Although Simon Jenkins is wrong about most things, he's right about this. We would be much better off getting density through 6-9 story blocks like most European cities.
And he's right that there are a huge number of massive luxury tower blocks currently and also that if recent experience is anything to go buy around 50% of them will remain empty (but that may not be true in future since stamp duty increases have significantly reduced the attractiveness of high end residential to foreign purchasers).
As I just wrote, even in the area most heavily stricken by this phenomenom, it is less than 2% of homes. having 2% more high-end homes available for sale would barely put a dent into property prices. Blaming that instead of silly restrictions on building, is dishonest.
OK. I'm only allowed to blame London's hosing crisis on one issue. A problem can only have a single cause. Gotcha.
1.400 empty properties in K&C. They could house 3,000+ people. That's not insignificant even if it would not solve the housing crisis at a stroke
Quote from: Gups on June 16, 2017, 07:29:24 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 16, 2017, 07:24:33 AM
as slightly related, everyone is yelling at foreigners buying properties and leaving them empty driving up property prices.
I have already found that a bit of a lame "blame the foreigner" thing, seeing how I have been renting exclusively from different members of the English middle class, but due to this event I have learned that Kensington, as the borough with the most empty homes have 1.6% of them empty. SCANDALOUS!!!!
If you are living in a property it's not empty is it?
Point being, less than 2% of property left empty (and lets not forget this is not all newly built stuff, some are old shit left uninhabitable) does fuckall to property prices. On common people levels, anyways.
I am sure developers are lining up to buy crazy overpriced London real-estate just to tear it down and build expensive 6-9 story blocks for affordable housing.
Quote from: Valmy on June 16, 2017, 07:35:10 AM
I am sure developers are lining up to buy crazy overpriced London real-estate just to tear it down and build expensive 6-9 story blocks for affordable housing.
In housing the trickle down effect works.
Stop the mega wealthy keeping expensive houses empty and the wealthy don't have to buy middle class housing then the middle class don't have to buy working class housing...
Quote from: Tyr on June 16, 2017, 07:56:40 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 16, 2017, 07:35:10 AM
I am sure developers are lining up to buy crazy overpriced London real-estate just to tear it down and build expensive 6-9 story blocks for affordable housing.
In housing the trickle down effect works.
Stop the mega wealthy keeping expensive houses empty and the wealthy don't have to buy middle class housing then the middle class don't have to buy working class housing...
2%
The silly "green" belts appear to be a bigger problem. You can't have buildings that block the view and you can't build on a shitload of unused land because it is full of overgrowth that people pretend is a "green" zone. No wonder there is a housing shortage.
And the government pretends to solve this with a help to buy scheme that makes people be able to pay more, thus increasing demand. But the problem is supply, not demand.
The true problem with the housing crisis is the over concentration of the economy in London.
Theres just too many jobs in too small a space. The green belts and transport infrastructure are supplementary to this core issue.
There needs to be more effort to spread jobs elsewhere in the country so then people from elsewhere won't all be forced to pile into London.
(which better public transport would do a lot of towards Helping)
Quote from: Tyr on June 16, 2017, 08:10:38 AM
The true problem with the housing crisis is the over concentration of the economy in London.
Theres just too many jobs in too small a space. The green belts and transport infrastructure are supplementary to this core issue.
There needs to be more effort to spread jobs elsewhere in the country so then people from elsewhere won't all be forced to pile into London.
(which better public transport would do a lot of towards Helping)
Well yeah but you can't force skilled workers to relocate now can you? Without somebody being able to actually do the job at their new location, companies won't relocate.
Quote from: Tamas on June 16, 2017, 08:17:44 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 16, 2017, 08:10:38 AM
The true problem with the housing crisis is the over concentration of the economy in London.
Theres just too many jobs in too small a space. The green belts and transport infrastructure are supplementary to this core issue.
There needs to be more effort to spread jobs elsewhere in the country so then people from elsewhere won't all be forced to pile into London.
(which better public transport would do a lot of towards Helping)
Well yeah but you can't force skilled workers to relocate now can you? Without somebody being able to actually do the job at their new location, companies won't relocate.
As someone based in London, yeah, I don't have a great desire to live elsewhere in the UK. Well, maybe would consider Edinburgh/Glasgow. :blush:
Why not? Companies seem to regularly build stuff in the smaller towns and cities in the US. Stuff gets built in Tulsa, why not Liverpool?
Quote from: Valmy on June 16, 2017, 09:34:00 AM
Why not? Companies seem to regularly build stuff in the smaller towns and cities in the US. Stuff gets built in Tulsa, why not Liverpool?
You might be thinking about a different kind of job. :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on June 16, 2017, 09:34:00 AM
Why not? Companies seem to regularly build stuff in the smaller towns and cities in the US. Stuff gets built in Tulsa, why not Liverpool?
Off-off-off... off Wall Street?
Quote from: The Brain on June 16, 2017, 09:38:30 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 16, 2017, 09:34:00 AM
Why not? Companies seem to regularly build stuff in the smaller towns and cities in the US. Stuff gets built in Tulsa, why not Liverpool?
Off-off-off... off Wall Street?
Main Street!
London is basically about bankers and the people selling them food and other services. :P
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 16, 2017, 06:31:21 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 16, 2017, 05:31:16 AM
It is early days but it looks like it is the building regulations that are at fault; ie insufficiently stringent. Apparently the cladding used is illegal in the USA for example. Sprinkler systems have been required for new blocks for a few years but there is no requirement to retrofit them in older buildings. I did feel for a fire safety expert who was on BBC news last night; he has known about these problems for years and has been banging on about them but receiving the cold shoulder from officials and politicians.
Illegal in Germany too. Frankfurt's fire chief ripped British regulations to shreds in an interview.
Frankfurt? :hmm: :tinfoil:
Mainhattan advertising itself? Not the same kind of towers, really.
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2017, 09:19:17 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 16, 2017, 08:17:44 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 16, 2017, 08:10:38 AM
The true problem with the housing crisis is the over concentration of the economy in London.
Theres just too many jobs in too small a space. The green belts and transport infrastructure are supplementary to this core issue.
There needs to be more effort to spread jobs elsewhere in the country so then people from elsewhere won't all be forced to pile into London.
(which better public transport would do a lot of towards Helping)
Well yeah but you can't force skilled workers to relocate now can you? Without somebody being able to actually do the job at their new location, companies won't relocate.
As someone based in London, yeah, I don't have a great desire to live elsewhere in the UK. Well, maybe would consider Edinburgh/Glasgow. :blush:
Consider Brits working there though.
I'd wager a good chunk of the people you know are originally from elsewhere and moved to London for work.
Offer Londoners the chance to be able to keep their job and move home and many of them will bite your hand off for it.
Why Edinburgh/Glasgow?
Have you considered an other reading of the situation? Namely, that London is the exception in terms of the quality and number of jobs one can reasonably expect out of the British Isles, and the rest of the UK is the norm, not the other way around?
Quote from: Tyr on June 16, 2017, 10:24:19 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2017, 09:19:17 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 16, 2017, 08:17:44 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 16, 2017, 08:10:38 AM
The true problem with the housing crisis is the over concentration of the economy in London.
Theres just too many jobs in too small a space. The green belts and transport infrastructure are supplementary to this core issue.
There needs to be more effort to spread jobs elsewhere in the country so then people from elsewhere won't all be forced to pile into London.
(which better public transport would do a lot of towards Helping)
Well yeah but you can't force skilled workers to relocate now can you? Without somebody being able to actually do the job at their new location, companies won't relocate.
As someone based in London, yeah, I don't have a great desire to live elsewhere in the UK. Well, maybe would consider Edinburgh/Glasgow. :blush:
Consider Brits working there though.
I'd wager a good chunk of the people you know are originally from elsewhere and moved to London for work.
Offer Londoners the chance to be able to keep their job and move home and many of them will bite your hand off for it.
Not sure that's entirely the case. I know several people who had similar jobs in their home areas who moved here - some of whom work at companies that have offices in their home areas. I know you hate London but that doesn't mean that everybody does.
Certainly though pay is higher here but then that's always the case with big cities vs. elsewhere in a country.
Quote from: Tyr on June 16, 2017, 10:24:19 AM
Why Edinburgh/Glasgow?
Nice, friendly cities though obviously on a much smaller scale. Preference really for Glasgow but recognize that Edinburgh has higher prestige/esteem.
Quote from: Tyr on June 16, 2017, 10:24:19 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2017, 09:19:17 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 16, 2017, 08:17:44 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 16, 2017, 08:10:38 AM
The true problem with the housing crisis is the over concentration of the economy in London.
Theres just too many jobs in too small a space. The green belts and transport infrastructure are supplementary to this core issue.
There needs to be more effort to spread jobs elsewhere in the country so then people from elsewhere won't all be forced to pile into London.
(which better public transport would do a lot of towards Helping)
Well yeah but you can't force skilled workers to relocate now can you? Without somebody being able to actually do the job at their new location, companies won't relocate.
As someone based in London, yeah, I don't have a great desire to live elsewhere in the UK. Well, maybe would consider Edinburgh/Glasgow. :blush:
Consider Brits working there though.
I'd wager a good chunk of the people you know are originally from elsewhere and moved to London for work.
Offer Londoners the chance to be able to keep their job and move home and many of them will bite your hand off for it.
Maybe. But consider a company that employees 100 people in London, and which is considering relocating. Let's say that 85 of those people are not originally from London, and of those, 75 would prefer to keep their job but relocate to their hometown. The problem is, that might well be 70 different hometowns; the company isn't going to open 70 new locations--they're going to either stay in London or relocate to 1 other city.
Quote from: dps on June 16, 2017, 05:07:03 PM
Quote from: Tyr on June 16, 2017, 10:24:19 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2017, 09:19:17 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 16, 2017, 08:17:44 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 16, 2017, 08:10:38 AM
The true problem with the housing crisis is the over concentration of the economy in London.
Theres just too many jobs in too small a space. The green belts and transport infrastructure are supplementary to this core issue.
There needs to be more effort to spread jobs elsewhere in the country so then people from elsewhere won't all be forced to pile into London.
(which better public transport would do a lot of towards Helping)
Well yeah but you can't force skilled workers to relocate now can you? Without somebody being able to actually do the job at their new location, companies won't relocate.
As someone based in London, yeah, I don't have a great desire to live elsewhere in the UK. Well, maybe would consider Edinburgh/Glasgow. :blush:
Consider Brits working there though.
I'd wager a good chunk of the people you know are originally from elsewhere and moved to London for work.
Offer Londoners the chance to be able to keep their job and move home and many of them will bite your hand off for it.
Maybe. But consider a company that employees 100 people in London, and which is considering relocating. Let's say that 85 of those people are not originally from London, and of those, 75 would prefer to keep their job but relocate to their hometown. The problem is, that might well be 70 different hometowns; the company isn't going to open 70 new locations--they're going to either stay in London or relocate to 1 other city.
If it is office work they could consider letting their employees work from home.
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2017, 05:13:21 PM
If it is office work they could consider letting their employees work from home.
That's true, and I would expect we'll continue to see more of that in the future.
QuoteNot sure that's entirely the case. I know several people who had similar jobs in their home areas who moved here - some of whom work at companies that have offices in their home areas. I know you hate London but that doesn't mean that everybody does.
Certainly though pay is higher here but then that's always the case with big cities vs. elsewhere in a country.
Oh sure, there are some for whom London is an attraction in itself. (Particularly a certain type of young person too rich/stupid to consider London's issues. :p)
But with older people in particular there's a big drive to get out.
I've tried to find the statistics but am drawing a blank, but I'm sure they are out there, that there's a huge drive into London for 20 somethings and then as people approach 40 a huge drive to get out.
Quote from: dps on June 16, 2017, 05:07:03 PM
Maybe. But consider a company that employees 100 people in London, and which is considering relocating. Let's say that 85 of those people are not originally from London, and of those, 75 would prefer to keep their job but relocate to their hometown. The problem is, that might well be 70 different hometowns; the company isn't going to open 70 new locations--they're going to either stay in London or relocate to 1 other city.
When I've heard people based in London speak of this I've heard people say "Back north" as much as they say "back home". I'd guess for many the aim isn't so much to move to their hometown (many of them coming from no-name villages) but to move to a northern city.
Also the UK isn't that big. Move the office to Leeds for instance and pretty much anyone from Yorkshire except the far north can move home. The Manchester lot can have a good go of it too.
As someone mentioned earlier, London consists of bankers, and people selling things to bankers. Obviously an overstatement, but probably not much of one.
Finance, at least based on current geographical concentration, appears to benefit from network effects, as do tech and entertainment. That's the reason for their concentration in London, not Evol Margaret Thatcher pushing the finance concentration slider to 11 or companies deciding where to locate their staff being stupid.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 17, 2017, 06:00:17 PM
As someone mentioned earlier, London consists of bankers, and people selling things to bankers. Obviously an overstatement, but probably not much of one.
Finance, at least based on current geographical concentration, appears to benefit from network effects, as do tech and entertainment. That's the reason for their concentration in London, not Evol Margaret Thatcher pushing the finance concentration slider to 11 or companies deciding where to locate their staff being stupid.
If only the coal mines were still open... there would be a buzzing financial centre in Newcastle.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 17, 2017, 06:00:17 PM
As someone mentioned earlier, London consists of bankers, and people selling things to bankers. Obviously an overstatement, but probably not much of one.
Finance, at least based on current geographical concentration, appears to benefit from network effects, as do tech and entertainment. That's the reason for their concentration in London, not Evol Margaret Thatcher pushing the finance concentration slider to 11 or companies deciding where to locate their staff being stupid.
Frankfurt doesn't dominate Germany.
Zurich doesn't rule Switzerland.
Says you.
Besides, that was kinda' my earlier point: maybe London dominates so much not because the rest of the UK is below what can be reasonably expected of the country, but London is far above.
Quote from: Tamas on June 18, 2017, 06:27:16 AM
Besides, that was kinda' my earlier point: maybe London dominates so much not because the rest of the UK is below what can be reasonably expected of the country, but London is far above.
It's both.
I've posted the map of regional wealth before.
London is the richest region in Europe whilst some other places are more on a par with rural eastern Europe.
That's what makes government policy all the worse.